Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my intention to object to all 18 Bills. Could they be put together and objection be taken to all of them at once?

Mr. Speaker: That might save time. Objection is taken to all of them. I shall read through the list quickly, and the Chairman of Ways and Means will then name a future day for all of them.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL BILL

C-POULTRY COMPANY LIMITED BILL

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS)

BILL

HARROGATE STRAY BILL

HASTINGS PIER BILL

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL

LLOYDS BANK (MERGER) BILL

NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED BILL

PLYMOUTH MARINE EVENTS BASE BILL

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL

SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

SOUTH YORKSHIRE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

STREATHAM PARK CEMETERY BILL

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Trident

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce his revised estimate of the cost of Trident.

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the latest cost estimate of Trident.

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the most recent dollar-sterling exchange rate of which the review of Trident costs has taken account.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Each year the long-term programme of my Department is re-costed as part of a planning process. Established convention indicates that I should assume a dollar exchange rate of £1 to $1··38. The updated Trident figure on this basis, and at average 1984–85 prices, is £9,285 million. Approximately 55 per cent. of the work by value is planned to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. I see no case for changing the conventions on which this Government and previous Governments have worked. However, in view of public interest, I am making available to the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee an indication of the effects of the changes in the exchange rates so that those wishing to predict exchange rate changes over the procurement period of the Trident programme will be able to do so at the exchange rate that they consider appropriate.

Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State admit that that cost is a gross underestimate, taking into account the current dollar-sterling rate? Will he further admit that the 55 per cent. figure in the United States is also an underestimate? Is it not outrageous that thousands of millions of pounds are to be spent in the United States on American technology and jobs? How can the right hon. Gentleman defend that situation to the millions of unemployed people in this country?

Mr. Heseltine: No doubt inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has got the figures wrong. The figure that we believe to be right is about 55 per cent. of the cost in the United Kingdom, as opposed to 45 per cent. as the hon. Gentleman says. The issue is whether Britain needs its own independent nuclear deterrent, and whether the D5 Trident system is the appropriate one. That was the decision reached by the Government, and upon which they were elected. It would not be difficult to persuade the British people, employed or unemployed, that the security of these islands depends on Britain's independent deterrent and associated defence policies.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State will no doubt recall telling the Select Committee on Defence on 22 May 1984 that the whole submarine will be built here. How can he say that when £17 million worth is being built in the United States and another so-called design contract costing $63 million has been given to General Dynamics


Corporation? Does he not recognise that, to use a favourite phrase of the Government, he has a grossly uneconomic weapon, which should be scrapped forthwith?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady does not believe that Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent, and nor does the Labour party, to which she belongs, but that party was soundly beaten in the election, one of the reasons being precisely that conviction. I do not have the record of my evidence to the Select Committee in front of me, but I shall check it. The submarine will be part of a contract that we intend to place with Vickers. We think that within that contract the American contribution could be about 10 per cent.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is there not a point at which the exchange rate will reach such an extreme that the missile system cannot be ordered without it causing immense damage to other conventional defence spending, unless the matter is fudged by extending the procurement life, presumably even beyond the life of the missile system?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions, the first of which concerns the changing assumptions in the period concerned. Ministers have given no authority to change the assumptions on which the costing has taken place. I have added a further instruction to my Department that there will be no change in the assumptions and that, subject only to security considerations, if there were in my view to be a need to change the assumption I would report that fact to the House. Otherwise, the position remains as it was when Sir John Nott first explained the circumstances relating to D5 to the House in March 1982. There will not be a spread, as has been suggested. I agree that trying to predict 18 or 20 years ahead for a programme of this type produces some elements of guesstimate at the tail end of the period.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the scale and impact of the programme on the defence budget. It is a very large programme, but the House will take account of the fact that, when the Tornado programme was in its early stages, it was a larger proportion of the defence budget, which, in turn, was smaller than it is now. I do not remember there being a great outcry from the Opposition that there was no way in which we could accommodate the Tornado programme in the smaller defence budget of the time.

Sir Anthony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to emphasise that the programme will enable us to retain a capability which successive Governments have thought it appropriate for us to have and that more than half the money that is to be spent will be spent in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. He and the Government believe that an independent British nuclear deterrent is an essential part of the strategy that has kept the peace in Europe for a record period in contemporary history. As those policies patently have worked, and continue to work, we believe that they should be continued.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cost can be assessed only in relation to effectiveness? Is he worried that the development of star wars defence systems might render Trident ineffective? Does that make a case for the development of alternative non-ballistic systems, which might also be cheaper?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises an important question, but the time scale in which those questions will be answered provides the answer to his question. The star wars project is a research project which will cover a period of time which will ensure that, even if the Americans determine to go ahead with the project—nobody knows whether they will have the capability or, in the end, will take such a decision—the fact remains that we should have Trident in service long before that. It would play a critical role in the defence of the West long before the star wars project could be implemented.

Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that three things have changed since the Government first took their decision: first, that the cash cost of the project has virtually doubled; secondly, that the time over which it is planned to repay it has been lengthened twice; and, thirdly, that the value of contracts to British industry has declined as a proportion of the total? Does he agree that those changes mean that we should re-examine the programme and decide whether, in the interests of British defence and industry, we should go for more spending on conventional defences?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have increased the defence budget by about £3,000 million in real terms and that that enhancement is broadly continuing into the future. It has given us vast extra resources, part of which will be spent on Trident. I have read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches in which he suggests that assumptions have been changed. How does he square that with the comments of my predecessor, Sir John Nott who said:
I can confirm that we are talking about large numbers of jobs for British industry and a huge programme which will stretch over the period of 18 years." — [0fficial Report, 11 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 979.]
If the right hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to reflect that statement in his speeches to the House, his facts would be more accurate than they are without such reference.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Trident programme is unique, in that the envisaged costing covers the whole programme and everything that is required for Trident? All other defence expenditure costing does not include everything. For example, the Tornado programme did not include hardened shelters and the other necessary facilities. The same is true of warships and everything else. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when people talk about the cost of Trident it is the whole cost, whereas for all other defence programmes it is not?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made a most important point. It is especially relevant to his example of the Tornado programme. It took up a bigger proportion of the defence budget. It was a more expensive programme on a lower defence budget. The costing for it gave us only an aircraft that could fly. The weapons systems with which it had to be equipped and the infrastructure from which it would fly had to be added to the cost. That shows dramatically that, although the cost of Trident is large, because it is of such significance to the defence of the United Kingdom it is containable in our much larger defence budget.

Mr. Duffy: Even if the Secretary of State can contain the financial cost of Trident, is he not incurring greater opportunity costs in terms of the Alliance's real needs, which, on the military side, are sustainability in Europe


and, on the political side, conventional initiatives that will raise the nuclear threshold? Is he not in danger of appearing to behave as irrelevantly to the real needs of the Alliance with his Trident programme as President Reagan is with his star wars programme?

Mr. Heseltine: It was precisely because the Government wanted to increase conventional capability that we took decisions which have added £3,000 million to the defence budget in real terms. Precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward so articulately, we could not understand the proposal to reduce the defence budget by one third, on which he campaigned at the general election.

Sir John Farr: I recognise the importance of Trident to us, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be much easier to support this policy if there were a bigger percentage of home-produced content in the weapon? Will he re-examine the weapon's control system to see whether it is possible for British contractors to quote for that part of the contract?

Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be attractive if, in the concept of the two-way street, there were a larger United Kingdom component in the Trident programme. It was one of the many contracts in existence when we joined, and it is extremely difficult for contractors to break into a pattern of industrial organisation of that sort. Attempts are being made and a significant number of companies are involved in the process, although not as many as I should like. That has to do with the companies themselves, not just with the attitudes of the British or American Governments. I would not want to pretend that, where we had to make a major decision about this uniquely important defence system, we were able to negotiate offset arrangements of the sort that characteristically we would want. Whereas on the concept of the two-way street the Government have a 2:1 adverse ratio, in the not-too-distant history it was a 4:1 adverse ratio.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In case the Secretary of State has not heard this news, let me tell him that the pound is not standing at $1·38 but is hovering around $1·10. That puts another £700 million, as he well knows, on the figure that he has given to the House. Therefore, the figure is £10 billion, not the £9·2 billion that he mentioned. Why does the right hon. Gentleman make himself look so ridiculous by pretending that all that money can be found without making substantial and savage cuts, in Britain's real defences? Apart from a perverse vanity, what is the point of going ahead with this weapon, which no rational person could contemplate using, and which, if it were used, would turn our island into a pile of irradiated rubble?

Mr. Heseltine: Are we to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the nuclear weapons which the Labour Government thought so necessary were useful, whereas the Trident programme is not? The Labour Government consistently maintained Britain's indepedent deterrent and, in secret, modernised it through the Chevaline process. Yet this Government, who are merely continuing the same programme, have apparently lost that support.

Experimental Aircraft Project

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the present standing of the experimental aircraft project.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): The experimental aircraft programme is a joint venture by the Ministry of Defence and industry to bring together and demonstrate in one aircraft specific advance technologies which will be applicable to a variety of advanced aircraft. The design and construction of the experimental aircraft are progressing satisfactorily and it is on schedule for first flight in 1986.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware of the urgent need for a fighter aircraft? Will he make a decision on the European fighter in March? If not, in the interests of defence, the RAF and the work force, will he go it alone?

Mr. Butler: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman has managed to switch the question to one about the European fighter aircraft, about which a question will follow soon. The experimental aircraft is not a prototype for the European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend try to obtain data from this most important technology demonstrator and pool the data with that obtained from the French on the ACX aircraft, since both experimental aeroplanes will provide the technology needed for the Euro fighter, which we all hope will form the front line of the five air forces which have agreed joint staff targets?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that my hon. Friend has pointed to the advantages of and need for collaboration in such matters. I hope that what he suggests will be possible.

Mr. McNamara: Can we expect the French to share their research secrets with us, when the French Government have allocated nearly three times as much money to the ACX project as we have allocated to the European fighter aircraft project? Why will the Government not invest more money, in the interests of British industry and jobs?

Mr. Butler: Again, we are straying into the question about the European fighter aircraft. I can only refer to the understanding that exists with regard to collaboration in aircraft matters. If we are to go ahead with the project, it will be essential to exchange technological information.

Nuclear Missiles

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the light of the recent accident involving American service men handling Pershing II missiles in Germany, he will review safety precautions for handling missiles with nuclear warheads in transit in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): As I told the hon. and learned Member on 13 November, the arrangements for the safe transport of nuclear weapons remain constantly under review.

Mr. Janner: Recognising, as I hope the Government do, the anxieties about the dangers inherent in the handling and transport of nuclear missiles, will the Minister answer a simple question: are local fire and police authorities informed when missiles are to pass through their areas?

Mr. Stanley: As I told the hon. and learned Gentleman previously, guidance is issued to some chief constables and fire officers. I cannot go further than that, because it is not the Government's policy, any more that it was our predecessor's policy, to give any information about the routes or methods of transport of nuclear weapons.

Mrs. Currie: With regard to the movement of nuclear weapons and their resting places, did my hon. Friend notice the comments of Mr. Roger Spiller, the male vice chairman of the CND, that the campaign at Molesworth, unlike the unsuccessful campaign at Greenham common, will not be left to women this time because
Molesworth is more impOrtant than Greenham common"?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the philosophies and practices of the CND are not only wrong and foolish, but sexist to boot?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure her that the addition of a male element will make this campaign no more successful than the previous one.

FH70 Ammunition

Mr. McWilliam: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning FH70 ammunition procurement.

Mr. Butler: Deliveries of FH70 ammunition began in 1978 and procurement of certain kinds is continuing. The allocation of work on the FH70 programme is governed by a memorandum of understanding agreed by the participants to the programme.

Mr. McWilliam: Is it not a matter of some concern that the FH70 ammunition, which was due from Germany at the beginning of December, appears not yet to be available to us? It is three months late.

Mr. Butler: There have been some delays, due to problems in the Defence Procurement Executive of the German Government, but that does not alter the position with regard to the placing of the order. Much as I would have liked it to go to the royal ordnance factories, it was out of the question that it should do so under the terms of our understanding.

Mrs. McCurley: In the light of my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), can he tell us whether the final cost of the contract for the FH70, which has gone to Germany, will be more than it would have been had the contract been carried out in this country?

Mr. Butler: I understand that the prices are competitive in this matter.

Mr. McNamara: As the ammunition is used in the main battlefield Howitzer, will the Minister of State give an undertaking that it is not the intention now or in the future to adapt the Howitzer to take either nuclear warheads or the enhanced radiation weapons?

Mr. Butler: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical no. If I am mistaken, I shall let him know.

Mr. Merchant: In regard to the FH70 order, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the excellent record and delivery times furnished by the royal ordance factory at Birtley for previous FH70 orders and compare these with the apparent unreliability of the German source?

Mr. Butler: I have explained that the delays which have occurred in regard to the project have been within the Defence Procurement Executive, not, so far as I am aware, within German industry. Nevertheless, I am prepared to pay tribute to the royal ordance factory in the way that my hon. Friend would like.

Nuclear Tests (Radiation)

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the evidence given by his Department to the Australian Royal Commission currently in London investigating the safety of the United Kingdom nuclear test programme in the 1950s.

Mr. Butler: Her Majesty's Government are cooperating as fully as practicable with the Australian Royal Commission. Twenty-five witnesses are being assisted to give evidence to the commission. They include high-ranking staff who were in responsible positions during the test programme, and the first to be called was Lord Penney. The Ministry of Defence has also made available a large number of trials and other reports and is providing the commission with access to and guidance on the massive volume of contemporary material relating to the test programmes.

Mr. Hamilton: Have not the Government been criticised by the commission for refusing access to certain documents which it thought were vital? If so, is this not another example of the Government being more concerned to avoid political embarrassment than to show concern for national security?

Mr. Butler: No. On the contrary, we have gone out of our way to be helpful. We have released documents ahead of the 30-year rule; we have given members of the commission access to Aldermaston; and we have assisted them in looking at the material. But—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—quite rightly we are witholding information which is still classified, and for good reason.

Sir John Farr: When will the report on the tests being conducted by my right hon. Friend's Department into British service personnel who were in that area in the 1950s be available, and when will the findings of the tests and analyses be published?

Mr. Butler: The report will not be available until the autumn of 1986, due to its complexity. There would be no point in having the report if the findings were not made generally available.

Scottish Junior Soldiers

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning Government proposals to transfer the training of Scottish junior soldiers to England.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Representations have been received on this subject from Members of both Houses of Parliament, representatives of local authorities and from members of the public.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that he and his colleagues have totally failed to make a case for the


proposed closure and that the only case they have made is that they will save £3·382 million? In the context of the defence budget, is that not a paltry sum to end 200 years of starting the training of junior infantry men within Scotland? Will he reverse the decision and continue to ensure that Scottish regiments' recruits for the infantry are trained within Scotland?

Mr. Lee: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but the closure of Bridge of Don is part of an overall scheme which will reduce the number of establishments from 21 to 13 and save about 100 civilian jobs overall and £8 million worth of capital costs, and also substantial running costs. The decision has been taken and it is irrevocable.

Mr. Pollock: Does the Minister appreciate that these proposals continue to cause grave disquiet among many of my constituents, who remain deeply unhappy at the prospect of losing an important visible regimental link at Bridge of Don? Is it not a fact that the argument on unit costs could be transformed by a simple policy change whereby more junior training took place at Bridge of Don rather than elsewhere? Will he examine that option carefully before any final step is taken?

Mr. Lee: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which he has expressed on a number of occasions in public and in private. We have looked at all the options. In 1983–84, 183 recruits went through Bridge of Don, whereas 785 went through the Shorncliff establishment in Kent, so there is really no comparison.

European Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the proposed European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position of collaborative negotiations on the proposed European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Butler: The feasibility study on the European figher aircraft is continuing and we expect to receive reports on the outcome of the industrial aspects of that study shortly. Discussions are also proceeding at Government level on a range of activities affecting the programme. Defence Ministers will meet in the spring to review the latest position.

Mr. Thorne: May we be assured that, should we go ahead with the production of a European fighter aircraft, a major portion of the production work will take place in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: If we follow precedent in this matter, the work sharing will be according to the number of aircraft that the respective air forces need.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend accept that rumours of a deferment of the meeting of Defence Ministers of the countries likely to be involved in the project, originally scheduled for the spring, respresent yet more success for the French, one of whose objectives seems to be to delay this project at any costs either to the benefit of their industry or to the detriment of ours? Does he appreciate that, in those circumstances, British Aerospace and other potential partners on the United Kingdom side are expecting a firm stand to be taken when the meeting eventually takes place?

Mr. Butler: I said in my main answer that the Defence Ministers intend to meet in the spring to review progress and that the results of the study will be available shortly. That being the case, I hope that we can make progress on this matter. On the other hand, anybody with experience of the project will know that difficulties have arisen in the past, that compromises have been necessary and that there may be considerable argument before we can decide whether to go on to the next stage. It is the intention of the Government as a whole to make this collaborative project work if we can because it will be to the advantage of our Air Force and industry.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister confirm that the basic weight of this aircraft should be between 10 tonnes and 11 tonnes, because it would then be likely to meet the operational requirements of the RAF?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The work is being done around a weight of 9½ tonnes, with some opportunity to investigate a variant on that.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as up to 800 of these aircraft could eventually be produced for the countries interested in obtaining them, this is a matter of enormous importance for the development of future technology and employment prospect in Britain, especially for companies interested in tendering under the programme?

Mr. Butler: The sales prospects for this aircraft within NATO and to third countries will be greater if it proceeds as a collaborative venture than if, for instance, we are forced back on to a unilateral solution.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern in the aircraft industry lest this project ends in fiasco? Is he further aware of the feeling in the industry that the Secretary of State for Defence is being led by the nose by the French? Is it not a fact that the requirements of the French air force and of the RAF are different, in that the RAF wants a combat fighter while the French want a ground attack fighter? Will he now say whether, if the project is cancelled and does not go ahead, we will build our own aircraft?

Mr. Butler: I shall certainly not answer the last part of that supplementary question directly because, first, it is our intention to try to make the project succeed, and, secondly, if we cannot go ahead with all the partners which are at present involved, it obviously makes sense to see whether it would be sensible to proceed with other partners. My judgment is that industry in Britain is much more realistic and pragmatic about this matter than is the right hon. Gentleman.

Joint Defence Consultative Process

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the developments within the Western European Union of the joint defence consultative process originally proposed last summer.

Mr. Heseltine: Yes. The Rome meeting of Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers last October was an excellent start. I am looking forward to the next meeting with my WEU colleagues later this year.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he think that, apart from the framework of


the discussions, this process is capable of producing beneficial side effects and results—as, for instance, British weapons sales to the French in greater measure? Is my right hon. Friend optimistic that we may be able to sell the ALARM missile system to the French?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the matters about which the Ministers gathered in the WEU felt strongly was that we should not indulge in overlapping with other or existing organisations. Arms collaboration with our allies—the French would feature prominently in that collaboration—is very much seen as the preserve of the independent European programme group, where we have recently taken decisions and hope to move forward on a very significant range of collaborative projects.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent he wants the WEU to evolve into a uniquely European voice upon defence and arms limitation matters?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that the Ministers from all the countries who attended that meeting realised that there were a range of reasons that brought us together. It was very much a formative experience for Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers to meet one another. There is shortly to be another meeting. I have no doubt that in both that forum and a range of other appropriate fora, arms control will be a very live issue in 1985.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State agree that the French are very much cooling off with regard to the suggested new liaison and that it is very unlikely that the optimism he has displayed will prove to be of any import? The important element is the French, and the French are no longer willing and happy to participate in this exercise.

Mr. Heseltine: The Labour party has been so unsuccessful in speaking on behalf of the British people that I am not surprised that it should now speak on behalf of the French. I doubt whether its views will be any more attractive in France than they are in Britain.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the stockpile of chemical weapons by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its allies.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's defensive capability against chemical weapons.

Mr. Heseltine: We view the massive Soviet chemical weapons capability with particular concern. We believe that total abolition is the best answer and are continuing to work in Geneva for a comprehensive, verifiable and worldwide ban on such weapons, including the destruction of existing stocks. In parallel, we keep our defensive measures under careful review in the light of the threat. A substantial investment has been made over many years to provide our armed forces with defensive protection against chemical attack.

Mr. Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend shed any light on why the Soviet Union is currently running heavy

troop training programmes in protective clothing for chemical warfare, bearing in mind that this country abandoned chemical weapons nearly 30 years ago, that none are deployed currently in Western Europe and that the Soviet Union has at this moment 300,000 tonnes of chemicals for military use?

Mr. Heseltine: I am the first to share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the training exercises in which the Soviet Union involves itself, including those involving chemical weapons. I believe that it would be far better employed in pursuing as actively as we and our American allies wish to pursue the arms control proposals that are on the table.

Mr. Proctor: Bearing in mind that when, in the late 1950s, the United Kingdom renounced the offensive use of chemical weapons there was no similar response from the Soviet Union, what are the present prospects for the success of the talks?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it is extremely difficult to forecast accurately the prospects for success in arms control talks. All that one can say on behalf of this Government is that we shall make every endeavour to bring those talks to a fruitful conclusion.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the "every endeavour" that we are prepared to make include trying to convince the Americans that the challenge inspection facilities of chemical manufacturing plants should be extended to all plants, whether or not they are state-owned?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman follows the details he will be aware that the Americans have explained their attitudes on this, which will have an effect upon a wide range of plants in the United States outside those owned by the Government.

Mr. Conway: Is my right hon. Friend happy with the priority that is given in our armed services to nuclear, biological and chemical training? Does he anticipate the early introduction of the next generation of NBC protective clothing?

Mr. Heseltine: I can assure my hon. Friend that we maintain our research into those matters and update the equipment as appropriate from time to time. I cannot tell the House that I am satisfied with the existing situation. I do not see how any Secretary of State for Defence could be when a country, in alliance, that poses the threat to our interest has such large stocks of chemical weapons and we have none.

Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the United States has stocks of chemical weapons in Germany? Is he aware that the Opposition support wholeheartedly attempts by Her Majesty's Government to obtain a comprehensive ban on all chemical weapons and any efforts being made to improve the capability of NBC protective uniforms? What lessons have been learnt from Operation Lionheart in that respect?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the United States' stocks of chemical weapons are of a very aged character, that there has been no updating of those stocks for a significant period and that they are of a limited scale. We are still studying the lessons of Lionheart in our Department. As I have already said, we shall continue to research and update the protective equipment in that area.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will be no part of the review that he announced earlier to allow the Americans to stockpile chemical weapons in British bases?

Mr. Heseltine: I have no proposals of that sort before me.

Ethiopia (RAF Aircraft)

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the Ethiopian tour of duty of Royal Air Force transport planes for a further three months.

Mr. Stanley: Our offer to extend the airlift to the end of March and to review the position again nearer that time has been accepted by the Ethiopian Government. I am glad to tell the House that the British RAF and Army detachment in Ethiopia has now airlifted some 6,000 tonnes of relief supplies, and has taken part in recent trials in the air dropping of supplies to more inaccessible parts of the famine area.

Mr. Wallace: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will pay tribute to the work done by the RAF. The public, having responded so well to the appeals that have been made, think that it is important, both for distribution purposes and psychologically, that the Government continue their commitment. Will the Minister give the House more reassurance about the future extent to which food can be taken to the Tigré and Eritrea regions of Ethiopia by the RAF?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the contributions made by the armed services. Undoubtedly, they have been strikingly effective in the utilisation of the two Hercules that we have out there. We shall continue the dropping operation by conventional landing techniques, but, as I have said, we have just started exploring the possibility of air dropping. Whether we shall be able to do that will depend upon whether we can put together arrangements for the landing of ground parties, which is obviously crucial when dropping by free fall.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend go further and warmly congratulate the Hercules squadron—both the aircrew on their exceptional airmanship and the ground crew on their exceptional servicing record—thus keeping the squadron going on short runways and in difficult conditions, and thereby playing an important part in the relief of this difficult part of east Africa?

Mr. Stanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly bear witness, from my experience out there just before Christmas, of the difficult landing and take-off conditions which the RAF has successfully dealt with, not least in coping with the considerable problems represented by the bird strikes, which took out about 9ft of the leading edge of one of the wings of the Hercules just before Christmas. All concerned have done outstandingly well.

Mr. O'Neill: I congratulate the Government on their work, but will the Minister confirm that the cost of the work is being borne by the Ministry of Defence and will not come out of the Overseas Development Administration budget?

Mr. Stanley: No, that is not quite correct. For the first three months of our contribution the costs were borne exclusively by the Ministry of Defence, on the defence budget. With the extension of the operation from the beginning of February, we have agreed to share the costs equally between the Overseas Development Administration and the Ministry of Defence.

Royal Observer Corps

Mr. John M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the role and resources of the Royal Observer Corps; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: The role and resources of the Royal Observer Corps are kept under regular consideration in conjunction with the Home Office. The corps continues to provide an excellent service and there are no present plans for a review.

Mr. Taylor: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to say whether he is committed to sustaining the resources and morale of those who serve the Royal Observer Corps, and will he from time to time say how the great majority of the British people appreciate its vigilance?

Mr. Lee: I am delighted to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the Royal Observer Corps. Its morale is excellent. It does a first-class job for us. There are 11,000 serving members at present and the corps costs less than £5 million a year. It is a first-class unit.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dykes: As there still is great public anxiety on the subject, will my right hon. Friend undertake this afternoon to look at the subject again and reassure the House and the nation that the Government will look twice at the dangers of imposing any additional forms of taxation on pension funds or lump sum payments?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the concern about this subject. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that was made in the House, in response to questions, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, I cannot say anything more at the present time, but I do urge him to look at that statement by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Kinnock: Three weeks ago the Government were against the idea of increasing interest rates to defend sterling, but they did increase them and it did not work. Two weeks ago the Government scorned the idea of intervening to defend sterling, but they did intervene and it did not work. Can the Prime Minister tell us what she is going to do now?

The Prime Minister: I recall the right hon. Gentleman saying on 15 January that he was absolutely against speculation against the pound and that he thought it was


"irresponsible and irrational". If that is what he thought then, I hope that that is what he thinks now, and that he thinks that the action that has been taken to stop this is right and well judged in the circumstances.

Mr. Kinnock: I do think it irresponsible and irrational, but it is the right hon. Lady who believes in the market system and not us. Her response again today will impress nobody, either at home or abroad. It is the right hon. Lady who has surrendered policy-making entirely to the whims of the market. The result is chaos, a crisis of confidence and a huge rise in interest rate burdens on both business borrowers and home buyers. Is the right hon. Lady going to change her policies in the light of that experience, or will she go on with the same mixture of panic and paralysis that has brought us to this mess?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is objecting to what we have done or saying that we should have done nothing. In fact, the action that my right hon. Friend took was to maintain the financial strategy that has brought inflation lower for a longer period than any other Government have done previously and which, in spite of the effects of a coal strike—[Interruption.]—for 10 to 11 months last year has kept the current account in surplus.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady's strategy is coming apart at the seams, and she knows very well that it is coming apart at the seams. What we want is a real strategy to give proper growth and recovery to our economy, and all we are getting from the Government, especially now, is dithering and, again this afternoon, dodging. That will only mean more on the dole and more in debt. We have not a crisis of confidence in the country but an absence of confidence in the Government. Are the Government willing to change their policies, and will the Prime Minister really help by chucking out the Chancellor?

The Prime Minister: The action taken has been such as to impose financial discipline on all sections of the economy, including the Government. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that gross domestic product is at its highest ever level. I hope that he is pleased about that. Fixed investment across the economy is at its highest ever real level. Retail sales are at their highest ever real level; they have increased by 4 per cent. in volume. Profits increased by 20 per cent.—[Interruption.]—in the first three quarters of 1984. The Government's record on inflation is second to none. If the right hon. Gentleman listens to what is being said about unemployment, he will understand that the most important thing in tackling unemployment is to keep down inflation.

Several Hon. Members: roseȔ

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat what I said last week during Prime Minister's Questions. The Leader of the Opposition gets a fair hearing and it is only right that the Prime Minister should get an equally fair hearing.

Mr. Hordern: As interest rates have been increased to a level that must put at rest any fears that there may have been about inflation, and as the markets are now offering the best opportunity ever seen for our exporters and business men to do business abroad, what reason have we to complain?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will be aware, markets are opening up because of the strength of

the dollar and the weakness of sterling compared with the dollar. He will be aware also that it is vital to stay competitive on wage costs. The people who can benefit most from that are those who are best able to take advantage of the present exchange rate. My hon. Friend will know that our wage costs are rising and that the Opposition support every wage claim. At the same time, the wage costs of our competitors are either remaining stable or decreasing. If the Opposition want to improve the prospect of employment, they must help to keep down unit wage costs.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As, in part, sterling's problems stem from uncertainty over oil prices, and as over-production at a time of depressed demand leads to a disorderly market, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have reserve powers to limit production and depletion in the North sea? Will she consider using these to underpin the light crude oil price and so help to bring back stability to the oil market?

The Prime Minister: The policy that we pursue is really the same as that of the United States. We do not have powers to restrict production in the North sea, but we have powers to purchase 51 per cent. of that production at whatever is the market price. I think that we must stick to that.

Mr. Steel: When will the Prime Minister recognise that the rest of the world does not share her rosy view about her handling of the economy and that it is possible that the rest of the world is right and she is wrong? Since she spoke on "Woman's Hour" and said that the pound was undervalued she has had to increase interest rates to their highest level for 150 years. Will she explain to the House why it is that the pound does not do what she tells it to do?

The Prime Minister: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about interest rates. He will note that interest rates in real terms are not as high as they have been in the United States, and I am often urged to follow the course of the United States.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the shambles in which the Prime Minister finds herself, does she not think that it is now appropriate for her to dispose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the national interest? As she cannot find a satisfactory alternative, will she say whether the promised tax concessions will be implemented in the Budget? If they are, will that result in more new real jobs, in her terms?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman must await the Budget. I remind him that the Government have raised the thresholds of personal taxation by 16 per cent. That means that income that is tax-free has been increased by 16 per cent. The previous Labour Government lowered thresholds.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although the high interest rates that have had to be introduced are a worry and a difficulty for industry, business in Britain will, nevertheless, support the Government while they continue to keep inflation down? Indeed, business would probably send the Government a


message saying that they must try harder in dealing with inflation, because inflation destroys both large and small businesses.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is always a disappointment to have to raise interest rates, but the effect would be far worse if inflation were allowed to increase again. On 7 February 1978 the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that
in terms of promoting employment opportunities throughout the country … nothing is more important than containing inflation."—[Official Report, 7 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1271.]

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at the weekend, all over Scotland there was snow, and temperatures at well below freezing, old people suffering from hypothermia and pneumonia, and yet still there was no exceptional weather payment? How much longer must the north of England and Scotland suffer these arctic conditions? How many more old people must die before the right hon. Lady changes her mind?

The Prime Minister: This question is asked on every occasion, and on every occasion I give the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends the same reply: this matter is under review. The main heating benefit is the regular heating amount paid. The heating amount paid to pensioners under this Government far exceeds the amount paid under any previous Labour Government. This Government have everything to be proud of in the way in which they have looked after the heating allowance for pensioners.

Sir Bernard Braine: I comment on the proposed celebrations of VE day. Does my hon. Friend recall that the war started with the cruel dismemberment of Poland and that, in what followed, Polish pilots helped to defend this island and Polish troops fought with distinction alongside our own troops? Yet, when the war was over, those Polish troops found that they had lost their homeland. I ask my right hon. Friend, most respectfully, whether she will ensure that Polish veterans living in this country, and Czechoslovaks who shared the same fate, will have an honoured place in any parades or church services?

The Prime Minister: I gladly join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to what Polish troops did in wartime and to the gallant way in which they fought throughout the war. We shall ensure that his point is taken fully into account.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister seen the estimates that, if the coal strike ends, consumption of oil will decrease by between 500,000 and 1 million barrels a day? If the right hon. Lady is so good at predicting what will happen to the economy, will she predict what will happen to the price of oil in that event? And what will be the effect on the pound?

The Prime Minister: Anyone who could predict that would not be on this earth, and I doubt whether they can even predict that up aloft.

Mr. John Browne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, of the factors affecting sterling, many — such as the value of the dollar, the price of oil, the world recession and the size of the United States' deficit—are completely outside the Government's control? Does my right hon. Friend accept also—[Interruption.]—that the majority of my constituents, many of whom do not vote Conservative, think that she has done and continues to do an outstanding job?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and all reasonable people would agree with him on the facts. The price of oil is outside the control of the Government. Total production is far too small to have an effect on the price of oil. The rise in the dollar is also outside the control of the Government. We have done all that we can about that by taking part with the G5 nations in co-ordinated intervention. We are left with two problems, which are the decisions that have been taken about the price of oil and the coal strike.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why real interest rates in this country are now double those in Germany? Is it not a reflection of a complete lack of international confidence in her and her Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will study the international comparisons he will find that West Germany has run a strict financial policy for many years. Therefore, it has brought its inflation down further than ours. In West Germany it is 2·1 per cent. He will also find that it has kept its public expenditure under control and that it made considerable sacrifices for two years. West Germany has—[Interruption.] I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in the reply or whether his hon. Friends are just interested in shouting. He asked me about West Germany, and I pointed out that its inflation is lower than ours through a strict financial policy. In answer to a previous question, I pointed out that it keeps its wage costs down. Its unit wage costs are lower than ours. It has kept a strict control of public expenditure. In the past two years West Germany has cut unemployment and maternity benefits and delayed pension increases. With that strictness over the past two years, and some of the sacrifices made by her people, it is not surprising that the deutschmark should have risen against sterling.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of Question Time?

Mr. Kinnock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, early today we asked for a statement from


the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government's economic policy, and such a statement was refused. In view of that, the Prime Minister's utterly inadequate responses on that matter, which is of central importance today, and because of the Government's bungling

economic policy as evidenced by manufactured trade and output figures, unemployment figures—[Interruption.] interest rates figures and the current turmoil, I wish to give you notice that we shall be tabling a motion censuring the Government for their utter mismanagement.

Interest Rates

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which I have given him prior notice. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Labour party has—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member to ask a private notice question. It is only fair that he should be heard. I cannot hear.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Mr. Speaker, the Labour party has illusions of adequacy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should ask the private notice question that he gave to me.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If I may be allowed to do that, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which I have given him prior notice—if he will make a statement of the current level of interest rates.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): At noon yesterday, following a rise in market interest rates, one of the clearing banks raised its base rate from 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. The Bank of England raised its dealing rates by a corresponding amount when it dealt in the bill market at 12.15 pm. The other clearing banks followed within the next hour or so.
Yesterday afternoon I gave evidence on these and related matters at considerable length to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), which I understand will be reporting to the House shortly.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Chancellor aware that the Government's "outstanding" record, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) referred earlier, is the highest level of unemployment since the 1930s and now the highest level of real interest rates since Britain came off the gold standard in 1931? Is he aware that the Government bear a very heavy responsibility for that record because they have been responsible for the uncertainty and confusion about exchange rate policy, because they have taken no action on oil prices or the rate of depletion of our North sea oil, as his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester also pointed out, and because the international markets are reflecting their lack of confidence in the non-oil sector of our economy?
Will the Chancellor now make clear exactly what the Government's exchange rate policy is, at what level he expects to keep the pound and whether he is prepared to take action on oil prices or on the rate of North sea oil depletion? Is he aware that if he does not do that he and his colleagues will be causing the people of this country to pay the price of the Government's own incompetence and blind devotion to economic dogma?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman should know perfectly well that no Chancellor is ever prepared to comment on market tactics and matters of that kind which would benefit only speculators and others and would be of no benefit to our country.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those who dominate the exchange

markets of the world are seldom, anyhow in my experience, much preoccupied with the British public sector borrowing requirement; and that until we apply our minds to their practical concerns rather than to our own theoretical shibboleths we are unlikely to be able to restore sterling to its proper level in world exchange markets?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is a much travelled man with great experience of financial operators throughout the world. Nevertheless, in my experience, there is and always has been considerable concern in the markets, among finance ministries and indeed within the IMF, as some Opposition Members will recall, about the public sector borrowing requirement of this and other countries and about the budget deficit of the United States, a matter about which my hon. Friend himself has expressed concern in the past.

Mr. John Maxton: As the Bank of England is now intervening to protect the pound, and as the Chancellor has restored minimum lending rate and is prepared to co-operate with other economies to protect the pound against the dollar, does he still hold to the dogma that free market forces should be allowed to operate?

Mr. Lawson: Of course free market forces will operate. It is one of the illusions of right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches that by a wave of a wand they can abolish free market forces. As I have said on a previous occasion, the decision taken by the Finance Ministers of the five major industrialised countries of the Western world a fortnight ago in Washington was that the time had come when it would be appropriate from time to time to intervene in a concerted way in the foreign exchange markets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was of course fully in line with the Williamsburg declaration which was signed some time ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are hardly laughing matters.

Mr. David Howell: On the influence of the crude oil price on sterling, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the status of sterling as a petro-currency can be and probably is being very much exaggerated? Might we not do better to free ourselves completely from involvement in trying to fix the international oil price and to withdraw the price-fixing function of the British National Oil Corporation?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that markets attach excessive importance to the value of North sea oil in our economy as a whole, sizeable though it is. Indeed, there is an idea that we are almost a one-commodity economy, whereas in fact oil and gas account for about 5 per cent. of gross domestic product and only 8½ per cent. of our total tax revenues. The price of oil is set by the market, not by BNOC.

Mr. Tony Benn: In view of the Chancellor's statement that public expenditure levels may have played some part in the fall of the value of the pound, could it be that world markets do not share his view that the £5 billion spent on fighting the miners was a worthwhile investment? Taking into account the fact that, since the fall in the value of the pound, not a single pit in Britain is uneconomic, would it not be wise for the Government to settle with the miners, who are responsible for building so much of our industrial future?

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman's paranoia is well known. The Government are in no sense fighting the miners. They are supporting the working miners and the coal industry.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it not true that one of the unfortunate but inevitable consequences of the rise of interest rates by more than four percentage points in recent weeks has been to add more than £1,000 million to the costs of British industry? Will my right hon. Friend therefore pay attention to the strong arguments for taking action in the Budget directly to reduce the costs of industry and so to help to offset that adverse effect?

Mr. Lawson: I shall take note of what my hon. Friend has said when I make my Budget judgments and frame the Budget. It was with this in mind that I abolished the national insurance surcharge in last year's Budget. However, I think that my hon. Friend is basing his calculation of the effect of interest rates on industry on an assumption that may well not be correct — the assumption that the present level of interest rates will remain in force for a full year.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Now that sterling has fallen to a relatively realistic exchange rate with the deutschmark, will the Chancellor embark on negotiations with a view to joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?

Mr. Lawson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter that we keep continually under review. I do not think, however, that recent events have changed the balance of the argument one way or the other with regard to joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the major features of the speculation against the pound in recent weeks has been the fear that the Chancellor may be getting soft on inflation and in particular that his control of the wider monetary aggregates may be rather too loose? Is not the prescription required to steady the market's nerves, therefore, the reverse of that suggested by many hon. Members? Should we not keep firm control of public expenditure and concentrate on increasing demand for industry's products through tax cuts rather than cutting costs in other ways?

Mr. Lawson: I agree very much with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Chancellor realise that, whether he likes it or not, the international financial world regards the pound sterling as a petro-currency? Is he aware that the policy that he as Secretary of State for Energy and his predecessors followed, of aggressive over-production, is now undermining the value of oil in the world market and is leading to the problems that he is encountering, especially higher interest rates? Will he contact OPEC to see what he can do with it to keep the value of oil stable? He will find that that is beneficial to the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Lawson: North sea oil has been one of the great successes of the British economy in the past few years. The policies that we have pursued have considerably assisted that success, which has led to the creation of many jobs in Scotland in the oil industry and in the offshore supplies industry.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public find it difficult to understand why the Opposition, whose stewardship of the pound sterling has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster, take such pleasure at the pound having a rough ride? Does he agree that reactions of this type do not help stiffen the currency in international markets?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware that, against the EMS index, the pound sterling is higher today than it was when we took office in 1979.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Chancellor take this belated opportunity to remove some of the uncertainty which still prejudices the pound and therefore interest rates? Will he make it unequivocally clear that he has now abandoned the policy of allowing the pound to float freely?

Mr. Lawson: The policy of the Government under my predecessor and me has been that the sterling exchange rate is always taken into account in assessing the correct financial policy at the time.

Financial Services

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's proposals to establish a new regulatory framework for the financial services industry. These proposals are published in a White Paper which I have today laid before the House. Subject to the parliamentary timetable, I plan to introduce a Bill in the next Session for their implementation.
Modern technology and intense international competition are bringing about rapid changes in the financial services industry. The responsibility for responding effectively to these changes lies principally with the industry. The Government's task—in this sector as in others—is to create an environment in which it can do so. This is best done by allowing market forces to operate responsibly but without unnecessary constraints, in a way which promotes efficient and competitive business.
A prerequisite for an internationally competitive industry is a clear regulatory framework within which practitioners and customers can deal with confidence, and which safeguards the interests of investors. This regulatory framework must be capable of adjusting to changes in the shape of the markets, and of accommodating rather than stifling innovation.
This the proposals set out in the White Paper are designed to achieve. They will assist enforcement, deter fraud and malpractice, improve disclosure and lay down the principles on which business should be conducted. The proposals cover both a new regulatory framework and a new institutional structure through which it will work.
First, the regulatory framework will be based on new and comprehensive definitions of investment and of investment business. It will be an offence to carry on an investment business in the United Kingdom without authorisation. To obtain such authorisation, an investment business will have to show that it is fit and proper, and will be required to observe detailed rules for the conduct of business based on principles to be set out in the legislation. Breach of those rules will be subject to sanctions up to and including the withdrawal of the authorisation to trade.
There will be a number of important further changes. I intend to rationalise and update the legal provisions dealing with offer documents and the advertising of investments, first to make it clear what must be disclosed, and second to establish standard provisions on civil and criminal liability for omissions and mistakes. I also propose to liberalise some restrictions on the unit trust industry and to enable it, subject to appropriate safeguards, to offer a greater variety of schemes to the public. Commissions and other payments to intermediaries will be disclosed. As far as possible, the marketing of life assurance contracts will be treated in a manner similar to the marketing of other investments.
The institutional structure is designed to implement the new regulatory framework. It is based on my belief that the crucial tasks of authorising investment businesses and keeping high standards of business conduct among those so authorised can be discharged much more effectively by those closest to the market — practitioners and their customers—than by Government. Malpractices can be identified and dealt with more quickly by those people than by Government regulators.
I therefore intend to build upon what is best in self-regulation. I shall propose legislation to confer on the Secretary of State the necessary powers to grant authorisation to investment businesses and to enable him to delegate regulatory responsibility, including the power of authorisation, to one or more bodies composed both of those who provide and those who use financial services. Before doing so, I shall require to be satisfied about the composition, constitution and proposed rules of these bodies, and I shall have power to withdraw delegated powers if such a body fails to continue to meet the criteria. Steps are already in train to set up the bodies. I hope that those concerned in the financial services industry will press ahead so that the structure is in place by the time the legislation is on the statute book.
The Government see great advantages in the system of self-regulation within a statutory framework. At the same time, we recognise that self-regulation should receive statutory backing only if there is proper accountability. The White Paper sets out the detailed means by which accountability of these bodies to Government and Parliament will be achieved. I shall highlight three particular statutory safeguards. First, there will be a right of appeal on authorisation and on penalties for breach of the rules to an independent tribunal to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Secondly, the Secretary of State will have the power, to be exercised on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, to revoke or amend rules which have anti-competitive effects. Thirdly, the Secretary of State will have various powers of appointment. I believe that our proposals combine the advantages of self-regulation within a statutory framework and proper accountability to Parliament.
I have today set out the Government's aims; our proposals for a new regulatory framework; and our proposals for a new institutional structure. The White Paper contains many details which the House will no doubt wish to study and then debate. I look forward to the contribution to be made by people both within and without the House, especially those with knowledge and experience in these matters. We have much benefited already from the advice of Professor Gower, of the Governor of the Bank of England, and of the groups chaired by Mr. Jacomb and Mr. Field.
The Government's proposals offer advantages to investors, industry and commerce, and the financial services industry itself. To the investor, our proposals offer more comprehensive protection against fraud or negligence, and better and fuller information on which to make investment decisions. To industry and commerce, they offer the prospect of keener and more innovative financial services and, therefore, of finance at cheaper rates. To the financial services industry, they offer a system administered by those familiar with the markets without unnecessary Government involvement. The high standards which we seek to promote will be in the interests of all.

Mr. John Smith: First, may I tell the Secretary of State about the areas in which there will be less controversy than others? Following the scandals of recent years in the City which led to the Gower investigation, it was clear that some action had to be taken to improve the inadequate protection offered by existing legislation, and we welcome the intention to strengthen legislation in respect of fraud and malpractice and to


require greater disclosure and, I hope, higher standards. We also accept the desirability of a scheme of authorisation whereby there is control over those allowed to offer advice and services in investment. We shall study the White Paper and subsequent legislation with care to ensure that they reflect properly those widely shared aspirations.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the real concern in recent years has been about not only inadequate legislative provision but about the capacity for its enforcement? Too many scandals have occurred not just because the law has been weak but because there was neither the will nor the mechanism to ensure that it was properly enforced. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in succumbing so easily to the pressure for self-regulation from interested parties, he has missed a great opportunity to set up an independent and expert standing commission to supervise and enforce the new laws?
Is the Secretary of State aware that when such major new developments are afoot in the City, which may lead to enormous changes in practices, habits and business techniques and may affect standards unpredictably, it is an ideal time to make the running on behalf of the public interest, and the City's future, by appointing an independent and effective commission to supervise and enforce the new rules? Is he aware that such a commission would be able to enforce the law more expertly, effectively and independently than would the confused jumble of provisions that he has just announced, and that, as Professor Gower said, it could easily be designed to avoid the complexities of the United States model?
After one year's deliberation, can the Secretary of State explain more clearly the nature of the bodies to which he is delegating so much public responsibility? Why has he not yet decided whether there will be one body or two? Is it not true that he appears to be delegating not only enforcement but the initiative to set up and organise the new bodies? Is it not surprising that he says that he hopes the new structure will be in place in time for the legislation? Why does he not ensure that it is in place in time for the new legislation?
Despite the padding, circumlocution and waffling of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, is it not clear that, instead of seizing the opportunity to act boldly and decisively by supporting the new legislation with an independent commission at a crucial time in the City's development, he has ducked the issue by making no substantially effective change in enforcement? Is he aware that the impact of his retreat from public responsibility will be not only less effective protection for the public, but the possible weakening of the potential business effectiveness of the City in the climate of fierce international competition that lies ahead?

Mr. Tebbit: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for emphasising those parts of the White Paper and the aims on which we generally agree. I agree that there have been major difficulties with law enforcement against fraud in the City. That is why we formed the permanent fraud investigation group, which reports to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, on 1 January. That is also why we have asked Lord Roskill's

committee to consider the way in which fraud trials should be conducted, and especially to consider the role of juries or assessors in such trials.
The major step forward that we have taken is to ensure that no one can trade in an investment business without authorisation. That is a step towards the prevention of fraud rather than the prosecution of fraud, and I am sure that we are as one in saying that we must prevent rather than prosecute.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a contempt for the City and its practitioners—

Mr. Smith: I did not say that.

Mr. Tebbit: That may be so, but the solution which he proposed is strongly opposed in the City, whereas my solution has wide support in the City among practitioners and users.
As to why the Government propose two bodies instead of one—

Mr. Smith: They do not.

Mr. Tebbit: The White Paper proposes two bodies. I have said that if it is decided that it would be better to operate with one body I should be happy seriously to consider that proposal.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may well be aware that there is a historical difference between the way in which activities in the City have been regulated and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry on the one hand in relation to the insurance industry and unit trusts and on the other hand of the banks and other organisations in relation to other securities. If he thinks about it for a little longer, he may well conclude that it may be right to start off along the lines which the City itself has proposed.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's major priority in all this is the protection of the public? Can he confirm that the self-regulating agency which he proposes to put forward will give adequate protection to the public either by the direct representation on that self-regulating agency of outside members, say, non-executives, or a supervisory body which may investigate faults or other matters brought to it by members of the public about practices in the City?

Mr. Tebbit: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the key in all this is the protection of the public. If the City is not seen to be a clean place in which to operate it will lose business. Thereby, gradually those who are practitioners will be losers as well. We look for efficiency, competitiveness, confidence by the investor and flexibility and vigorous enforcement against wrongdoers in the proposals which I put before the House.
In regard to the membership of the bodies, it is the intention that the members of the SIB and the MIB, the two bodies proposed, should include lay people and users of the services, as well as practitioners

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that the development of a statutory framework for self-regulation in the City is to be welcomed? Can he explain why it has taken him so long to come to the conclusion that it should be one or two bodies? Why has he not accepted the representations of quite a broad spectrum of people, including the Financial Times, that there should be one statutory independent body regulating the City? At a time of the creation of more and


more financial conglomerates, would not this make greater sense? Will he not, therefore, reconsider his decision and move in that direction, otherwise his proposals look very much like a limp hand in a velvet glove?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I explained to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the reasons which led to the interests in the City, practitioners and their customers and users proposing that there should be two bodies rather than one. It may well be that as time goes on there will be a change of view about this and that the two bodies might be merged. If that was the view which emerged, I would not oppose it. Equally, I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage for me to try to force down the necks of those who provide and use the services a solution which they do not want.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we hope that the Bill will be given proper and mature consideration and will not be enforced before the changes come about? Is he aware that the Stock Exchange arrangement, which has led to rather a shambolic position, should not be repeated on the City as a whole? Will he agree that, wonderful and proper though the Bank of England is in the influence it should have on the City, not every institution should be subject only to its wishes? I hope that Parliament will reserve the right to the nomination of people and will not always have to accept what the Bank of England wishes because it has often been proved wrong on many things.

Mr. Tebbit: There will be proper and mature consideration of the Bill when it comes before the House. That is the way of the House on all occasions, as we all know so well from our experience in Committee—well, most of the time. When my hon. Friend reads the White Paper he will find that the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with the approval of the Governor of the Bank of England and the members will be appointed conversely by the Governor with the approval of the Secretary of State. It will be a joint operation. The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and all the members of the Marketing of Investments Board.

Mr, John Ryman: I accept, of course, that the prime consideration is the protection of the investor, and I welcome the appointment of Lord Roskill and his committee to investigate fraud case trials, but is it not a scandal that for years crooks in the City of London have been getting away with it, although evidence has been forthcoming, because there has been a refusal to prosecute in cases which cry out for prosecution? Has this not given rise to great strength of feeling that the Government should act much more urgently? Is not the difficulty that the Minister finds himself in that the machinery he proposes must necessarily take a long time to set up and in the meantime many further serious criminal offences will be committed in the City of London without fear of prosecution, if the examples of recent years are followed?

Mr. Tebbit: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about offences which are committed but where prosecution is not carried through to conviction. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many such frauds involve persons

overseas who, as foreign nationals, are not unduly anxious to come to the Old Bailey to offer evidence. As he also knows, in many cases there have been difficulties about setting out extremely complicated facts in a way which juries can fully understand and the case goes on for a long time. I am sure that under the new system, where the rules for the conduct of business will be much cleaner, clearer and consistent across the whole market, it will not only be easier to see those who have offended, but also at a much earlier stage to prohibit from trading those whose practices, even if not regarded as criminal at the moment, are in contradiction to the code under which business should be carried out in the City.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that there is to be another statement, a Standing Order No. 10 application, a ten-minute Bill and further business. I shall allow questions on this statement to go on for another 10 minutes. I hope in that time to be able to call everyone who wishes to ask a question.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: In welcoming the White Paper proposals as a good balance between the protection of the consumer and the encouragement of innovative forces in the City, may I express to my right hon. Friend one disappointment? If it is felt appropriate that the purchaser of a life assurance or investment contract should be protected, why should the protection not be extended to those who purchase motor car insurance, household insurance or insurance covering valuables, because the mis-arranging of such insurances can bring just as much hardship as the mis-arranging of life assurance or investment contracts?

Mr. Tebbit: I share entirely my hon. Friend's concern about the damage which can be done if such matters are badly or incompetently arranged. However, the Gower report and the White Paper relate to the investment and securities industry. The non-life aspects of insurance are not normally regarded as investments. Therefore, they are not covered in the White Paper.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we be told how the Bank of England could act as an independent adviser in the case, say, of Johnson Matthey when the bank has already offered £75 million in the rescue programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of the fraud that is occurring, the bank will be placed in an invidious position?
Why have the Government decided to allow a self-regulatory system to the casino economy—the City—but are insisting on trade unions being subjected to a legal straitjacket? Is it not a fact that, although the Conservatives came to power claiming that they would reduce the number of quangos, the Government are now setting up another one, to be headed by the right hon. Gentleman and to be overlorded by the iron lady with the plastic pound?

Mr. Tebbit: I should, first, inform the hon. Gentleman that I have not asked, and do not intend to ask, the bank for advice on the matter to which he has referred. Secondly, I am extremely grateful to him for raising the question of what one might call parallel treatment between the City and the trade union movement. Has he considered what would happen if the Secretary of State for Employment took him seriously? The Secretary of State


would lay down the rules under which the trade union movement operated and would appoint the members of the TUC and the executives of the trade unions, and when trade unionists transgressed against the rules they would be prohibited from carrying on work as trade unionists, and if they did so despite that prohibition they would be sent to prison.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people who wish the City well and wish to see it continuing to be a successful part of the British economy will welcome the fact that in the regulation there is a minimum of Government involvement? As the power of the new City bodies will come from Parliament, through my right hon. Friend, how will Parliament be able to judge their success or failure? Will there be an annual report to Parliament from those bodies, for example?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is yes, the boards will report annually to the Secretary of State and those reports will be laid before Parliament. There will be accountability in other ways, as the Secretary of State will have power to require the amendment or withdrawal of the rules of the boards under certain circumstances, principally if they conflict with international obligations or if they are judged to be detrimental to competition and not justified in the interests of investor protection. Thus, there will be considerable parliamentary accountability.
I share my hon. Friend's view, as expressed earlier in his supplementary question, that it is better to have rather less Government involvement in the day-to-day regulation of these matters. The experience of most of us is that those in the City, the practitioners, are far quicker to detect the black sheep among their colleagues than perhaps are the Government.

Mr. Skinner: Black sheep indeed!

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) tempts me again. Trade unionists detect black sheep among their members, and that is why the NUM and many of its senior members are being sued in the courts by members of the NUM.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every cloud has a silver lining and that the investment by the NUM of its funds in a bank in Liechtenstein has resulted in the union getting almost £1 million in profit, because the money was invested in dollar bonds rather than in sterling?
While that may have occurred by way of an historical accident, may we be told what effect the right hon. Gentleman's statement today will have on the activities of those companies in "the square mile" for which that is a daily occurrence and for which speculation against the pound is a way of life? I refer to ICI and the other multinationals, whose profits are paid for by ordinary working people. What effect will the right hon. Gentleman's statement have on that state of affairs?

Mr. Tebbit: It will not have much effect; and it is difficult to answer questions which are inspired by paranoia rather than by experience. I hope the hon. Gentleman can assure us that the NUM, which is so

against speculation and windfall profits, will be donating the profit which it may have made, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, to some worthy cause.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, inasmuch as the day-to-day regulation will not affect the ability of the City to respond to innovation, competition and development, he will still retain powers in exceptional circumstances to appoint inspectors to investigate certain scandals which may take place in the City?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed; those powers will be unaffected.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In view of the acknowledged technical nature of the prospective legislation, the need for confidence in the machinery and the fact that the Secretary of State said that it will require mature consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the new public Bill procedure for the legislation?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure that I should do that on my feet. I hope that we shall have adequate debating time for the matter, and although, as I said, I am wedded to the basic structure—and, indeed, to much of the detail of the White Paper—equally, during the progress of the legislation through the House, and with the advice of many people outside it, we may discover better ways of doing some of what we propose to do than we see at present. I hope that the House will look at the legislation in that spirit. Certainly I shall.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I join in giving a general welcome to the White Paper and to the thought which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have clearly given to it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a rich opportunity, before legislation is introduced, to gain some consensus on an all-party basis? If my right hon. Friend re-reads the report of the debate on the Gower report, he will find that a clear consensus emerged from that debate, a consensus which, on the basis of his statement, does not seem to be reflected in the decision to have two supervisory bodies rather than one. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is open to suggestions on that. Will he bear in mind that the City institutions and interests which suggested that there should be two bodies rather than one do not necessarily have the protection of the investor but, rather, the protection of their own interests at heart?

Mr. Tebbit: I note carefully what my hon Friend says. It will be better if we can establish as much consensus as possible in this area, but it is not just consensus in the House that is needed. It is also consensus among the users and suppliers of the services. The principal area where the official Opposition and the Government may pull apart on these matters is on the question whether there should be a Government-operated statutory Stock Exchange Council-type of operation or whether it should be based principally on self-regulation within a statutory regulatory framework.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I assure my right hon. Friend that the proposals will be widely welcomed, subject to further study of the White Paper. Is he confident, however, that the Stock Exchange, preoccupied with its own internal deregulation at the same time as the new regulatory structure is being established, will be able to do it in time and meet its target date, which has been


agreed with the Government? Is he confident that the cost of the new structure will not be oppressive, either on practitioners or customers? Does he expect the Bill in the autumn of 1985 to include elements of the EEC's proposals on securities control?

Mr. Tebbit: I have not fully considered the matter to which my hon. Friend refers in the last part of his supplementary question, but I shall do so. As for the cost, it is certain that, whatever structure we have, the practitioners and users in the City will bear that cost, so they will have a strong interest in making sure that it is done as economically as possible.
The answer to my hon. Friend's point about the Stock Exchange is that I am still confident that it will meet the deadline. Indeed, it undertook to do so in the compact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson).

London Regional Transport

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the recent court judgment concerning the payment of grants to London Regional Transport by the Greater London council.
The Government took over responsibility for London Regional Transport on 29 June 1984, part way through the present financial year. Before we took over, the GLC had budgeted and precepted to pay grants to London Transport for the whole of 1984–85. Parliament therefore granted powers in section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act for the GLC to be directed to continue paying grants to LRT until the end of March 1985.
Accordingly, I made a direction on 29 June 1984, on the facts known to me at that time, requiring the GLC to pay a total of £281·3 million in grants to LRT in instalments up to the end of this financial year. The main factors which I had in mind in determining this figure included the GLC's decisions about revenue and capital grants to London Transport for 1984–85; LRT's financial needs for the remainder of the year, as assessed at that time; and the GLC's decision that LT should lease £27 million of assets, which imposed future liabilities on LRT. This was in accordance with the Government's intentions, as I made clear during the passage of the legislation.
The House will be aware that the direction was subsequently challenged by the GLC, and has recently been quashed by the High Court. It is clear from the judgment that the court took a different view of the way in which the powers under section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act should be exercised from that which I told Parliament the Government intended in taking the powers in the first place.
The effect of the judgment would be to reduce the money available to LRT by over £50 million at a very late stage in the financial year. A corresponding amount would accrue to the GLC. The Government regard this as contrary to the interests of ratepayers and LRT's passengers.
After studying the terms of the judgment, I have concluded that any new direction which could be made under the existing legislation either would not accomplish what was originally intended or would be vulnerable to further legal challenge, thus failing to resolve the damaging uncertainty which now exists over LRT's financial position for 1984–85 and beyond. Nor am I confident that an appeal would satisfactorily resolve the problems over the interpretation of section 49 which the judgment has brought to light.
In the circumstances, the Government consider that the matter can be settled only by the authority of Parliament. I shall shortly introduce new legislation to enable Parliament to determine once and for all the amount of grant to be paid to LRT by the GLC in 1984–85, and thereby ensure that the original purpose of section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act is carried out.

Mr. Peter Snape: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposal to use Parliament to avoid compliance with a High Court judgment is a constitutional outrage, that any such attempt to legislate will be strenuously and rigorously opposed by all those


Members of the Opposition who happen to believe in the rule of law, that any Labour Minister who behaved in the same cavalier manner as the right hon. Gentleman would be pilloried, if not torn to pieces, by the whole of Fleet street and that any principal holder of ministerial office, after being condemned of illegality by a High Court judge, after telling blatant untruths in this House and after swindling the ratepayers of Greater London of about £50 million, ought formally to apologise to the House and tender his resignation?
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman, with typical bluff and bluster, proposes to act in the way that he has outlined in his statement means that he intends to use the Government's majority to force through retrospective legislation in order to flout the verdict of a court, to condone his own improper and illegal behaviour, to defy the traditions of this House and to earn the contempt and derision of all true democrats, who deplore his shameless arrogance and political chicanery. If the right hon. Gentleman had a shred of decency he would not be bothering the House with this appalling statement; he would have the courtesy to tender his resignation.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has rather overreacted. It is clear that the court took a different view of the way in which the powers under section 49 of the Act should be exercised from that which the Government intended when taking the powers in the first place. When I told Parliament what section 49 meant, I really believed it to be true. If that was not the case, I should be misleading the House if I did not seek to put section 49 right so that it does mean what I said it meant.

Mr. John Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was made abundantly clear during the discussion of this clause in Committee that the unspent balance of moneys raised from the Government and from ratepayers for subsidising London's bus and tube services was to be paid over to LRT? That general principle was in no way dissented from at the time by any member of the Opposition. It would be an outrage to the ratepayers of London if the money raised from them for that purpose were to be applied by the GLC for any other purpose.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I made the intentions of the Government quite clear. The fact that what I told Parliament does not appear to have been reflected in the court's interpretation of the legislation means—

Mr. Snape: It means that the Government were wrong.

Mr. Ridley: No, it does not mean that they were wrong. I said that the legislation does not mean what I told Parliament it did mean. Therefore, it is perfectly proper for me to put that error right in the way that I have suggested. May I underline my hon. Friend's perfectly reasonable statement that money taken from the ratepayers and passengers of London for the purpose of transport in London should be used for that purpose and not for any other. That is all that the Government seek to do.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State has clearly revealed his total


incompetence. He does not even understand his own legislation. Will he tell the House what is the true figure? Is it £50 million, £60 million or £73 million?

Mr. Ridley: The exact figure will be in the Bill. The time to discuss the precise way in which it is computed will be when we reach the legislation. When announcing the intention to legislate it is not the normal practice to discuss the details of a Bill, let alone complicated figures which will involve fairly complex argument, in order to explain to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) what they mean.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Ratepayers in Enfield and elsewhere in Greater London paid rates on the understanding that they would be used for subsidising London Transport. Would it not be quite outrageous if the result of the interpretation of an Act, which was quite clearly expressed by my right hon. Friend, was that money could be spent by the Greater London council subsidising the women's committee, the police committee and other outrageous purposes for which the GLC tends to spend ratepayers' money?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I find it extraordinay that the Opposition should seriously resist his proposition that money taken from his and other hon. Members' constituents who are London ratepayers should be used for a totally separate pupose from that for which it was raised.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Despite the huffing and puffing of Opposition Members, my right hon. Friend should be aware that the ratepayers of London welcome the action that he is to take. It is perfectly in line with the Government's intentions, as expressed on the Floor of the House and in Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just a last gasp attempt by this moribund GLC, before abolition, to frustrate the intention of the House and, indeed, that it is typical of the behaviour of the appointed members from the GLC on the LT board just before vesting day?

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It was because of the extraordinary behaviour of the members of the board just before vesting day that we had to make this direction in rather a hurry. The principle must not be overturned by what has happened. What I said to the House about the meaning of the section is what we have to do. We are talking about large sums of money. It would be quite improper for this money, which has been taken from the ratepayers for one purpose, to be used for another.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that during the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport Bill he resisted an amendment which would have prevented this problem? Does he also recall that normally the attitude on the Conservative Benches is that decisions of the court produce not uncertainty but certainty, and that that is the place where such matters ought to be resolved? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, if he did not do so before, that this is the best illustration of the fact that when Governments and Secretaries of State seek to interfere more and more in the affairs of local authorities and local services they do not know what they are doing, and that the best remedy is to do what we are trying to do in Committee upstairs in order to prevent any Secretary of


State from interfering in London affairs any more than happens at the moment? Will the Secretary of State please accept that we do not want any more of this kind of interference? He cannot get it right. He never has, and he never will.

Mr. Ridley: I am not sure to which amendment in Committee the hon. Gentleman is referring, but many of those amendments would have failed to take the money that should have been taken from the GLC and apply it for the purpose for which it was precepted by that authority. We had every right to appeal against the judgment if we had wished to. In order to shorten the period of uncertainty, and, indeed, to remove uncertainty about the figures, it is obviously preferable that the appeal should take the form of legislation, so that certainty can be made clear. We cannot have this important matter subject to further legal challenge. I do not believe for one moment that the hon. Gentleman can sustain his argument that this is interfering with the GLC. The intentions of Parliament in an Act have proved not to be met by the way in which the legislation was drafted, and the only remedy is to put the legislation right.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is not the GLC effectively trying to prevent the ratepayers from benefiting from the investment that they made in LRT through the 1984–85 precept? Is that the situation that my right hon. Friend is describing?

Mr. Ridley: The sum of money is large—well over £50 million. If that sum is not paid over to LRT, fares will have to rise extremely high, further taxpayers' money will have to be provided or there will have to be an increase in the precept for next year in order to put right the gap which will appear in LRT's finances if we do nothing.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Are not the perils of over-centralisation and the legislation related to it the real lesson of this sorry affair? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his excellent imagination to foresee the perils which await him if he persists with the legislation currently in Committee? Will he also agree that next year £69 million of ratepayers' money is to be paid for the GLC in respect of non-written-off debt? Will he take the opportunity in the forthcoming legislation to rectify that monstrous imposition on London's ratepayers?

Mr. Ridley: I can see no conceivable way in which the issue of centralisation or devolution arises on the statement that I have just made. The statement arises out of a piece of legislation to which the House gave its assent last year. Nor do I see how it is possible for me to take into account any other matter concerning the GLC, because all that I am dealing with is the judgment, which is the subject of this statement.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the GLC doubled fares and rates for Londoners in its first year of office and has since spent several million pounds on a completely spurious campaign, lying to pensioners and saying that they will lose their travel passes when the GLC is abolished, when the passes in question have since been guaranteed in law by the Government? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the GLC will not be allowed to get near London Transport, which it made such a mess of when it did?

Mr. Ridley: I give my hon. Friend the guarantee for which he asks. It is a somewhat sad prospect to have to

go over the arguments of 1984 about the London Regional Transport Bill. That is what I regret about the need for this. All the fears, scares and rubbish that was talked at that time have been proved to be untrue. The only thing that has gone wrong is that the legislation needs amendment in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State expect the House to take his statement seriously? There is no damaging uncertainty at present; there is crystal clear certainty. The court has said clearly that the Government got it wrong, and the legislation is there to prove it. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that his statement has created extra uncertainty about the GLC's budget-making process for the forthcoming financial year? Does not his statement and the intended legislation make nonsense of the rate-capping legislation of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Environment and his attempts to set a rate limit for the GLC?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. There is at present in place no direction to the GLC, because the one that I made was quashed by the High Court. A new determination has to be made one way or another. Instead of making a new direction, I shall bring in a Bill which will have the amount of money named on the face of it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry, I did not answer the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and he is content with this legislation, which will be completely in accordance with what he is doing.

Mr. Marlow: Why is it that where there is a difference of opinion between the Government and a British court it is proper for the Government to bring before Parliament legislation favouring the Government's view rather than the court's view—I support that—yet when a European court disagrees with the Government it is impossible to bring forward legislation which the Government want, as we saw yesterday? Is it that Parliament can overrule British courts, but has no power when it comes to foreign courts?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend tempts me on to ground on which it is beyond my competence to give him a full answer. I can tell him only that I believe that he is right to say that when a British court interprets an Act of Parliament in a way different from what Parliament was told, it is correct for Parliament to seek to use its sovereignty to change the law. There is a great difference between using sovereignty to change the law, and criticising the judiciary, which my hon. Friend will know is one thing that I have not done.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is not the Secretary of State proposing to indulge in a shabby little manoeuvre to condone his robbery of money from the GLC and the people of London? Is not his proposal, in the Bill that he will put through, yet another example of the dangers of centralising local government around people such as himself who do not even represent London constituencies and who have no understanding of the needs or operations of London Transport? Will not the proposals that he intends to bring forward create further chaos and confusion, which he will then use to blame the GLC, through his friends in the press?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's words, that the money belongs to the GLC. The GLC precepted the ratepayers of London for the express and explicit purpose of passing the money on to LRT. How it can then be said that because it rated the money it should not give it to LRT baffles me. The hon. Gentleman has not told us what he thinks the £50 million plus, the windfall to the GLC if the Government did not take this action, would and should be spent on. He seems to think that further burdens should be put upon the ratepayers to make good the shortfall and that the GLC should be left with a surplus which it could spend on anything that it liked.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Has not the court's decision shown that the Secretary of State is a law-breaker in this matter, and has not his statement today shown that he thinks he is above the law, even his own law? Is not the taking of the vendetta against the GLC into new retrospective legislation a constitutional disgrace? Has he not shown his incompetence and should he not now give the GLC back the money that he has robbed from it so that it can be used for the benefit of London ratepayers?

Mr. Ridley: I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I can at least identify that the hon. Gentleman knows even less about these matters than I do. The idea that it is wrong for Parliament, which is sovereign, to change the law is something that he ought to know about.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Dave Nellist: I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport, the real architect of the miners' strike, will stay and listen to this application.
In the light of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition regarding next Monday's debate, I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's prolongation of the miners' strike.
That the matter is specific and important can be in no doubt. The provocation and prolongation of the dispute by the Government make it the longest and bitterest national dispute this century. It has arisen as a direct consequence of the Government's generalised attack on working people and their organisations and was predicted in the House in maiden speeches in the summer of 1983.
Throughout the dispute the Government have refused to justify their actions here in the House of Commons. Despite the fact that the matter has been debated daily in the media, in clubs, in pubs and on the estates, the one place held up as the epitome of democracy, the national debating chamber, in which no debate has taken place is here in the House of Commons.
The matter is urgent because today and every day that the Government refuse to withdraw their attack on over 100,000 jobs in and around the mining communities at least £20 million is wasted and 140,000 miners and their families suffer another day of the privation and starvation policies of the Government. By the end of this week, that daily total will have reached £100 million—sufficient to build in Coventry a large new general hospital and half a dozen new comprehensive schools, with enough small change left over for 1,000 new council houses. Eleven months of this dispute have destroyed those much needed facilities for 50 cities the size of Coventry.
The dispute should have urgent consideration so that the House can examine the role of certain individuals, such as Mr. David Hart, the adviser to the Prime Minister, who, in The Times on Saturday, said that the time for a negotiated settlement is past and that the Government should score a victory over Mr. Scargill. Some hon. Members may wish to raise also the role of Lord Chapple whose personal advice to the then Secretary of State for Energy, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, clinched the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor to the National Coal Board.
If the Government do not concede and withdraw the hit-list of pit closures, then on Monday 11 February the Yorkshire and south-east regions of the Trades Union Congress will call for a one-day stoppage. If the House does not debate this issue, if the Government do not withdraw that pit closure list, the stoppage on Monday 11 February will receive wider support from the trade union movement, leading to more generalised strike action.
If the House is the national debating chamber, that you, Mr. Speaker, have so often said it is, in the light of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the subject for debate next Monday, a Supply day, I ask that today's or tomorrow's business be suspended and that a debate on the miners' dispute be granted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's prolongation of the miners' strike".
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House, at least at a time when these talks are in progress.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Relating to your ruling that you will not accept an application under Standing Order No. 10 while the talks are proceeding, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a political, not a constitutional, point. As a matter of fact, I understand that the discussions that have taken place this morning are now over.
The point that I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that Parliament is here to consider whether something is urgent, not whether a discussion in Parliament would assist one side or the other. I put it to you that if the view put forward is that if it is too early, it is hypothetical, if it is immediate, it is delicate, and if it is over, it is not urgent because it is too late, the judgment that you have given is that Parliament can never play a part in discussions.
There is nothing whatever in Erskine May, nor is there any precedent of any of your forebears, to say that Mr. Speaker takes into account what is happening outside Parliament in respect of its outturn, but only whether it is specific, urgent and should be a matter covered by Standing Orders.
Because the Government will not have a debate—and my right hon. Friends have now tried, with an unprecedented refusal in my knowledge of an application under Standing Order No. 10 from the Front Bench—everything points to your interpreting the rules of the House free from any interests, which of course you do not have, Mr. Speaker, in the outturn of the talks.
In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I beg you to consider very carefully whether it is right that you should be driven, by the dilemma in which you find yourself, into giving a political judgment about whether a debate would be "helpful" or "unhelpful" to negotiations in which the whole country is interested.
Therefore, on that point alone, Mr. Speaker I ask you to consider the ruling that you have given and the precedents for it, and to tell the House more clearly the basis on which you reach a judgment and whether it is now to be something unconnected with the House but more directly related to discussions or negotiations going on outside Parliament.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you advise the House, and in particular myself? Am I right in thinking that if the Opposition Front Bench wants to discuss this matter it can use an Opposition Supply day—the earliest is Monday next—to do just that?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we had a discussion on this subject several days ago and I suggested that we should strip away the cold language and get down to the basics, you gave the

clear impression that, if the matter were pressed by the Opposition Front Bench, there would be half a chance. Yesterday, an application was made by the Front Bench. It had, somewhat belatedly, joined the Campaign group and others who felt that it was necessary to have a debate. That application was turned down. Now you have turned down an application under Standing Order No. 10 because of talks. You have also held out the prospect that there are opportunities, as suggested by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), for the Opposition to use one of their Supply days in order to have a debate, and you have to take that into consideration because it is a possibility.
You will also have heard today, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition state in clear and unmistakable terms that, because of the Government's failure to deal with the economy properly and with the 14 per cent. interest rates and the fact that we have an iron lady with a plastic pound running the country, he would table a censure motion against the Government. It has crossed my mind, and it has probably crossed yours, Mr. Speaker, that that might well take place on Monday when the Opposition have a Supply day. Personally I should like the debate to take place sooner.
The important thing to remember, which I hope you will bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that there are conflicting issues for Supply days, and the issue of the economy is very important. Therefore, it is necessary for Mr. Speaker to use the opportunity that he has under Standing Order No. 10 to grant a debate which is absolutely necessary because of those other conflicting issues which have arisen.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been reading and listening carefully to all the rulings that you have given on the applications made under Standing Order No. 10. So far 24 applications have been made in respect of the miners' dispute, and you have been minded to grant only one of them during that period.
In view of your remarks last week and yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that you considered this an urgent and important matter and that you would consider it further as time went on and more applications were made, I wonder what plans you may now have in respect of any further applications that may be made under Standing Order No. 10.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has pointed out, the debate next Monday is likely to be not on the coal dispute but on a different aspect of the country's economic problems. I believe—and I trust you will agree, Mr. Speaker—that the expenditure of £5·2 billion of public money by the Government on the mining dispute, without a vote in the House, and the use of Department of Health and Social Security regulations and the police and, perhaps more importantly, seriously and recently, the categorical refusal by the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday to answer questions about voltage reductions and the security of future power supplies in the country, mean that the House, of all places, must discuss the miners' dispute. This is not because we wish to demonstrate to the House once again our support for the miners, but so that Ministers can answer the serious points about which everybody outside the House is asking questions and talking. I do not believe that the House can go on blindfolding itself to the seriousness of the situation outside Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: I intended to go no further than what I said last week and yesterday—namely, that I think that we should debate this important matter when it is helpful to the situation. That is what I have said previously.
The House and the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have made applications under Standing Order No. 10 in the past have drawn attention to the importance of seeking a settlement to this extended and damaging strike. I hope that that is still the situation in the House. If that is interpreted as a political judgment, I am sorry; it was not so intended. It is simply that I thought that the House took the view that there is an appropriate moment to discuss this matter when it would be helpful to the resolution of the dispute. That is the position.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that a further point of order can arise from what I have just said.

Mr. Skinner: I wish to raise a separate matter, Mr. Speaker.
In taking the line that you have adopted over the past two or three days, you have mentioned, quite properly, that you would want a debate when it would be most helpful to the resolution of the dispute. I do not suggest for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that this line can create difficulties for you in future, but when the nation has been faced with conflicts in the past, industrial or otherwise, we have debated them, irrespective of whether our debates would resolve the issues. There is no better example than the fact that, during the Falklands war, we had several debates on that subject, and it cannot be denied that the debates took place before the conflict had ended.

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have said already.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has become clear, in the course of exchanges about Standing Order No. 10 applications, that you have decided to depart from the formula which you have used on many occasions previously when you have decided to refuse a Standing Order No. 10 application, which is to refuse to give your reasons, as you have said you are instructed to do by the rules of the House.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was correct when he said that by giving your ruling today you were taking a political decision by seeking to judge the helpfulness or otherwise of the debate. That matter has not normally fallen within your rulings or those of your predecessors. If such judgments have been made by you, Mr. Speaker, you have normally kept them to yourself. As there have been many other opportunities when the Labour Opposition could have raised the issue of the miners' dispute from the Opposition Front Bench, would it not be better, Mr. Speaker, to revert to your established rule not to give your reasons for refusal?

Mr. Speaker: That is very wise.

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal to grant fuel allowances to those in Scotland.
In the course of my brief remarks I shall seek to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be extremely helpful to 5 million people if the House could discuss the matter.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that over the past two weeks or so there has been considerable comment, especially from Scottish Members, but from others as well, about the discriminatory nature of the existing system of severe weather allowances. The Department of Health and Social Security has given special allowances to those in the south of England who are affected by exceptionally cold weather. The trigger point for the allowances is 105 in Plymouth, whereas it is 129 in Aberdeen. In other words, there can be the same levels of temperature in different parts of the United Kingdom where the level in one area will attract supplementary benefit and heating allowances, whereas it will not in another. This discriminates effectively against those who live in colder climates.
The matter is specific because yesterday afternoon a statement was made by the DHSS—I gather that it was made informally—that no allowances were to be made to those in Scotland, notwithstanding the severe weather which it has encountered over the past 14 days. I gather also that a parliamentary answer will become available this afternoon that will confirm my information.
Those who have studied these matters will be well aware of the very snowy conditions in Scotland, especially in the Highlands, which have cut electricity supplies in many areas. In certain areas the temperature has been minus 22 degrees Celsius, which is extremely cold by any standards. Curling bonspeils, which are very rare events, are taking place because the ice on the lochs is sufficiently thick, due to the low temperatures, to support that sporting activity.
The matter is important because hundreds of thousands of people are affected adversely by the discriminatory actions of the DHSS. Up to 5,000 old people will die every year in Scotland because of insufficient money to buy adequate fuel to provide sufficient heat to maintain themselves at a living temperature.
No other subject has caused so much public concern in Scotland in recent weeks as the one that I am putting before you, Mr. Speaker. Scotland is being treated effectively as a second-class area. I ask you to consider adjourning the House, under Standing Order No. 10, to allow us to discuss this important matter. It is extremely urgent, because a good part of the winter is still before us.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the severe weather payments which were made available to southern England last week which have been denied to those in Scotland this week, Scotland having suffered atrocious weather conditions in the past seven days".


I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Protection of the Rights of the Elderly in Home Ownership

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable those who go into Part III Accommodation under the National Assistance Act 1948 to assign up to a half share in their freehold or long leasehold property to a companion who has been residing with them for not less than five years and to assign the remaining share of their freehold or long leasehold property to the local authority, the capital value of which share shall become an interest in the local authority old people's home in which the assignor is to reside.
In recent years we have been making major strides in introducing the pride and joy of home ownership to those in all walks of life. As a result, the percentage of owner-occupiers has increased from 52 per cent. in 1973 to 60 per cent. in 1983, and it continues to rise. Having spent a lifetime of care and thrift, it comes as something of a shock for the elderly to be deprived of their assets in the evening of their lives. This is a matter of concern to many who deal with the elderly, including Age Concern.
When the aged enter an old people's home, they are expected to make a contribution towards their keep in addition to the £30 or thereabouts that is deducted from their old-age pensions if they have assets exceeding £1,200. Those in that position will find that a sliding scale is applied which will consume their assets at a rate of 26 per cent. per annum. This is a much higher percentage than the one which was felt to be too high when it was taken up in a private notice question earlier this afternoon. The sliding scale moves to the full cost of staying in an old persons' home, which can be as much as £150 a week. Unless a spouse or child under 16 years of age is left at the previous principal residence of the person entering the home, this property can be included in the individual's assets. This leads in many instances to considerable anxiety and hardship, especially when the person left behind has been living in the premises and sharing the cost of upkeep for many years, and finds himself or herself thrown out by a local authority which is anxious to reduce the residual bill that is left for the ratepayers.
In my constituency, there were two sisters who lived together in a family house from 1934. They lived first with their parents and then they shared the costs of upkeep between themselves. Unfortunately, their parents left the property to the elder sister, who was 18 years the elder, on the understanding that she in turn would leave it to her younger sister. When the elder sister had to go into an old persons' home at the age of 84, the local authority applied pressure for the sale of the house and offered a bed-sitting room flat to the younger sister.
After considerable negotiations, the authority agreed to the purchase of a one-bedroomed flat over which it has a charge. It allows the younger sister to occupy the flat, but sends her bills quarterly to cover the balance of her elder sister's charges after receiving her old-age pension and occupational pension. Currently the bills exceed £3,000 after the balance between the sale of the home and the purchase of the flat has been taken into account. This is a very worrying factor for a retired lady of nearly 70 years of age without other means.
It is open to the local authority to waive these charges but, as a prudent authority over the past 20 years, it has little money to spare, especially in the light of the current


rate support grant proposals. Apparently, if there is a shortfall in payment to a local authority old people's home, this is made good by the ratepayers. Those who cannot meet the full repayment in a private or charitable home have their payments made up by the taxpayer. That hardly encourages conscientious, caring local authorities to look after their elderly residents in these days of rate capping and manpower targets.
In 1984 the Government issued a consultative document on new regulations and guidance for assessing ability to pay charges for part III accommodation. That document was followed last Thursday week, on 17 January, with a local authority circular which, in paragraph 6, stated:
Paragraphs 17 to 23 of the Memo of Guidance give advice to authorities as to some circumstances in which they should exercise discretion. But these are not the only circumstances in which it might be appropriate to do so. It would also be reasonable for example for an authority to exercise its discretion where a person who has been caring for the resident continues to live in the dwelling. Authorities should look at each case on its merits and decide, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, to what extent (if any) the value of a former dwelling should be reduced in the assessment.
My Bill will seek to allow by right all those entering old people's homes to assign up to a half share in their principal residence to a companion who resides with them for not less than five years. My Bill also seeks to permit those entering council old people's homes to purchase a share of up to a full proportion of the total value—for example, a one fortieth interest in a 40-place home. That will enable weekly charges to be reduced to a share of the running costs and will enable the occupier to benefit from any appreciation in the value of the property. Any shortfall

in meeting the running costs out of pensions or other funds would be accumulated with interest and set off against the capital value on vacation of the premises, with the local authority repurchasing under a right of pre-emption at the district valuer's figure.
At the moment, many advisers recommend that their elderly clients should dispose of their assets before entering a home so that they can leave the bill to be met by the ratepayer. I believe that many would welcome the opportunity to purchase an interest to give themselves the dignity of home ownership throughout the remainder of their lives and avoid the present encouragement to dispose of their assets prematurely. Clearly, this would be of advantage not only to the elderly but to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Thorne, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Michael Marshall.

PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY IN HOME OWNERSHIP

Mr. Neil Thorne accordingly presented a Bill to enable those who go into Part III Accommodation under the National Assistance Act 1948 to assign up to a half share in their freehold or long leasehold property to a companion who has been residing with them for not less than five years and to assign the remaining share of their freehold or long leasehold property to the local authority, the capital value of which share shall become an interest in the local authority old peoples' home in which the assignor is to reside: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 March and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Considered in Committee

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. How far do we intend to proceed in Committee today? Is the draft list of selections by the Chair the final list? Does that list allow for the new clauses that were tabled for consideration?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: New clauses are normally considered at the end of the Committee proceedings. The selection list is provisional and extends as far as we might reasonably expect to go today. We hope that the hon. Member's wish to reach the new clauses is fulfilled by the end of our proceedings. I assure the hon. Member that we have not ruled out the selection of new clauses.
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10; Schedule 1; Clauses 11 to 22; Schedule 2; Clause 23; Schedule 3; Clauses 24 to 27; New Clauses; New Schedules; and Schedule 4.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2. line 12, leave out
'or treated for the purposes of registration as resident'
With this, I shall speak also to amendment No. 16, in page 2, leave out line 19.
There is a certain amount of indecision in the Bill as it stands, and I hope later to give examples. As the first Member to move an amendment, I point out that the Bill is a long one, comprising 27 clauses and a number of schedules. As I am sure that we shall examine the Bill carefully, and word by word, I shall try to make progress and keep my remarks succinct at this stage. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what I say. I hope that, if they are persuaded by some of my arguments and reasoning, they will be generous enough to admit that there is merit in some of the amendments and accept them. If they do not accept the amendments because they are incomplete, I hope that they will take the amendments and bring them forward again on Report as Government amendments.
The amendments are not complete. I do not believe that it would be sufficient to leave amendments Nos 11 and 16 without adding extra words to them. The amendments seek to define a little more closely the conditions under which a person qualifies as an overseas elector. I believe that if a person moves from this country he should be registered as an overseas elector according to permanent residence when he was last resident in this country. A student can be registered at a university in London while his permanent residence is in another area; for example, in Northumberland. Students can properly establish residences in both places and appear on both registers at

the same time. After graduating, the student could go abroad for, say, 10 years. I believe that it would be wrong if he continued to be registered as an overseas voter in that area of London where his name is on the electoral register.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help on this point. If his amendment is accepted, will it have the effect of precluding a person who was a service voter, but who has left the armed services, from having a vote?

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He anticipates what I was going to say. I said that the amendments were incomplete.
This case need not be confined to students, but could include landlords and business men. A person may conduct a business in a particular town in a particular constituency, but live in another constituency not too far away. Although his permanent residence is somewhere else, that person could be registered in both places. It would be wrong, if that business man sold the business and said that he was going to work abroad for a number of years, for him to be registered for the place where he had his business. If that person returned, he would return to his home and not to where he had his business.
As I understand the Bill, it allows people, such as students, those with jobs in different parts of the country, and others properly to register in more than one place. They would then be able to decide whether to register as an overseas voter for constituency A or B. That would be wrong. If they are to be treated as overseas voters, they should be registered for the place in this country of their last permanent residence.
I agree that if the amendments were accepted without any addition voters such as service men would not be able to vote. That applies also to patients in mental and other hospitals. It would be wrong for me to insist that because the hospital was their last place of residence they should be registered for that hospital. For that reason, the amendments are not sufficient in themselves.
I should like to refer the Committee to two documents. The first is Cmnd. 9140, "Representation of the People Acts". On page 26, paragraph 7 states:
The right to vote should be extended to British citizens resident abroad who have previously been registered as electors. The right should be exercised in respect of the constituency in which the elector was last resident before he or she left. Separate arrangements would have to be considered for young people who left the United Kingdom before they reached voting age.
Perhaps it is a loose form of words, but the document states:
The right to vote should be exercised in respect of the constituency in which the elector was last resident.
To me, that means where the elector lived, where his home was, and where he spent his evenings and slept. It does not mean the artificial words,
or treated for the purposes of registration as resident.
The Government's reply to the first report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs sets out the Government's views. I hope that those views have not changed since they published that reply and that they will agree with me on that point.
I should also like to refer the Committee to Home Office circular RPA 200. On page 8, under "Residence", it states that
on the one hand, a person is not to be registered for an address where he is staying temporarily on the qualifying date and, on


the other hand, a person is to be registered for his normal place of residence even though he may be temporarily absent from it on the qualifying date.
Clearly, my amendments must be supplemented, perhaps on Report. The intention is that the person should be registered at his normal place of residence even though he may be temporarily absent. To continue the analogy, overseas electors should not be given the choice whether they are to be treated as electors for the place where they are ordinarily resident, or—there may be a safe Labour or Tory seat or some other consideration—to say, "I wish to be registered as an overseas voter for the seat where I had my business or where I was at university." He may not necessarily be resident at the university for three years; he may have been there for one year doing a diploma.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument directed at the practice of multiple registration? Is not the evil against which he is now inveighing merely an extension of the choice available to those who are multiple registered to those who happen to be overseas at the time?

Dr. Marek: I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks at this stage, because I am sure that multiple registration will be discussed later. I am not seeking to argue that we should change the current practice of allowing students to register at two places. A student who spends 30 weeks a year at university can establish residence in that university. If he then spends the remaining 22 weeks of the year at his home, he can establish residence at his home.
There is a distinction between that and what the hon. Gentleman invited me to consider. The distinction is that the overseas voter leaves both addresses at which he has been resident and moves abroad for five, six, seven or 10 years. His links with his registered address must necessarily become weaker as time passes. If the Committee decides that that person should be allowed an overseas vote, it should be allowed only for his normal place of residence — his home. That is partially recognised in Cmnd. 9140 and RPA 200 also talks about that.
5.15 pm
RPA 200 states:
The question of whether or not in borderline cases a man is to be regarded as resident is … one to be resolved 'on a commonsense jury basis … by the ordinary understanding of man in the use of ordinary words in the English language'.
If decisions are to be made in that way, they will be much more difficult if we have the words,
or treated for the purposes of registration as resident".
If those words are deleted, we would be saying that the person is "resident at that address". It would then be necessary to table further amendments to ensure that service voters, hospital patients and the other categories mentioned in RPA 200 could nevertheless be registered as overseas voters at their normal addresses.
Precision is the necessary prerequisite for such a provision. We must know where we are. We do not want electoral registration officers to have to make value judgments, or to have these matters going through the courts, with arguments going backwards and forwards. We should legislate precisely. We can start by removing

the words that I have mentioned, and we could table further amendments to satisfy the conditions contained in RPA 200.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are two reasons why the Committee should not accept the amendment. The first is the one that I raised in an intervention. In its present form, the amendment would undoubtedly prevent service voters who subsequently go abroad from having a vote. It would have the same effect on mental hospital patients. I do not doubt that it would be possible to build in a host of exemptions to take account of those difficulties, but I am against complicated legislation. I do not want to see the Bill further complicated, unless there is a pressing need.
The second reason why the Committee should not support the amendment relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that he does not like the consequences of multiple registration. However, once we accept the principle that, for example, students may have two residences for the purpose of an election address if they are resident in this country it is nonsense not to carry forward that principle to when they go abroad for the relevant period. It is inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman should strike at the basic problem or accept the consequences.

Dr. Marek: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a student undertaking a course at a university well away from his normal residence should be treated, during a period abroad, as an overseas voter entitled to a vote at the place of study, even if he has been there for only one year?

Mr. Hogg: I am saying that if it is right for him to vote as a resident at the university, which is a fairly tenuous connection in any case, I do not think it a particular mischief for him to carry that address forward if he goes abroad. The problem lies more in multiple registration than in being abroad.

Mr. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) tabled the amendment, as it highlights one of the several difficulties arising from multiple registration and the way in which the concept of residence for registration purposes has been diluted in recent years. It has become apparent from a number of cases in both England and Scotland that what used to be understood by residence no longer holds in relation to electoral registration. It does not mean that the person lived or slept at the residence on the night, as in the case of the census, or was merely temporarily absent. It is possible to claim a number of residences at one and the same time on very general grounds. A person registered in several places can then choose where to exercise his vote.
The issue raised by the amendment is whether the person concerned should be able to exercise that choice from Tenerife, just as he can already exercise it from London, Liverpool or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. In other words, can he, as an overseas voter, exercise the same choice as he could within the United Kingdom? The amendment treats the symptom rather than the ailment. It is sometimes necessary to do that if the ailment cannot immediately be cured, but serious administrative difficulties arise. If we do not establish a procedure to check whether a person is resident where he


claims to be resident in the United Kingdom, how can we do so in respect of the limited number of overseas claims? That is the basic problem.
As the problems of multiple registration will arise at several points in our consideration of the Bill, it is not without value that the Government have been required to consider them at this early stage. The idea that residence can be claimed and granted in respect of a large number of places strikes at the ordinary meaning of the word "residence", as the hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out. The use in the Bill of the phrase
treated for the purposes of registration as resident
underlines that problem.
I doubt whether the amendment can be made workable, although it seems to me even more illogical, undesirable and unfair to allow a person resident abroad to choose between several constituencies than for that to be possible from a base within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I find the amendments somewhat strange and confusing. I should have thought that both categories of electors should be treated in exactly the same way. It seems unfair, and indeed contrary to the Labour party's views, to seek to increase democracy by trying to ensure that everyone in this country can exercise the vote while seeking to deny people that right if they have to go abroad to work or study, although they may have played an active part in the electoral process in the past.
I believe that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is more concerned about the practicalities of multiple registration. Certainly, one must always check very carefully against the electoral register to ensure that nobody votes more than once.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman is indeed confused. I am certainly not seeking to deny any student, or indeed anyone else, the right to vote as an overseas elector. I am merely seeking to ensure that he is registered and casts his vote according to his normal residence, not some artificial residence with which he has no strong links.

Mr. Bruinvels: A student registered both at his home address and at his university address may take one year of his course at the Sorbonne. The hon. Gentleman is surely not saying that such a person cannot choose the constituency in which he wishes to cast his vote. That would seem thoroughly unfair. I do not see why students should be treated differently from other people.
As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said, we shall be discussing multiple registration at several points in our consideration of the Bill. The electoral registration officers will perform their duties. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham is not seeking to cast aspersions on them. It seems thoroughly unfair that a person who goes overseas should not be able to cast his vote in the constituency of his choice. So long as he keeps in touch with the United Kingdom—he may still be paying rates and taxes here—he should have the right to vote. I strongly oppose the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the first substantive debate in the Committee. It has been a well informed debate and I hope that it sets the scene for those to come in the several days of our consideration of this matter.
I will deal first with the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and then with the substantive point that he has raised, as that is clearly of more concern to him than drafting points. The effect of the amendment would be precisely that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in his formidable address. My hon. Friend's contribution was all the better for being short and he made the two points that needed to be made. I shall reply in the same vein but at rather greater length.
The amendment would merely omit the provision whereby service voters are deemed to be resident at a particular address. Three years ago, voluntary patients were linked to that provision. If a person in either of those categories moved overseas the amendment would prevent his voting. I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but that would be the effect of his amendment.
The hon. Gentleman is really concerned to narrow the choice of people registered in more than one constituency. Our provisions would use the definition of residence contained in the 1983 Act. That definition does not make any distinction in quality between the two qualifications which may be acceptable to the electoral officers of the constituencies concerned. The electoral officer has regard to the guidance of the courts, which have established that a person is entitled to registration in respect of a particular address if there is a substantial degree of permanence.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pursues a lonely but dignified crusade against multiple registration.

Mr. Beith: It is not lonely.

Mr. Mellor: I meant by reference to some of his other crusades. Nevertheless, it has been held that a substantial degree of permanence can attach to more than one residence at the same time. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has explained, it is difficult to address that matter in the Bill. I should say in defence of the draftsman that a good deal of effort has been made to try to ensure that the provisions do not become an excuse for people to do more picking and choosing other than on the one matter that has already been exposed. The Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that where someone, within the qualifying period, has been registered in subsequent registers in different constituencies, he may qualify as an overseas elector only in respect of the last constituency in which he was registered.
It is recognised that some people may, within the seven-year period or whatever period the House may decide to be appropriate, have been registered in different constituencies in different years. That is taken care of. It is also carefully provided in clause 2 that a person may make an overseas elector's declaration only in respect of one constituency. If a person makes more than one declaration in a certain year, one for a first constituency and another for a second, the second declaration cancels the first. That is provided for by clause 2(5). Clause 2(4) provides that, if a person makes more than one declaration on the same day, both declarations are void.
5.30 pm
There is a difficulty if someone who wishes to qualify as an overseas elector is able to show that, when he was last registered in the United Kingdom, he was registered in two places. It is hard, within the definition of resident used throughout the 1983 consolidated statute which the


Bill follows, to determine which residence has the greater permanence. That is not a judgment which the statute gives us a basis for making. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham will agree that, even if we were to conclude that it was desirable to try to establish which of the two residences was the more permanent, it would not be a very worthwhile exercise.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He has uncovered the only occasion on which someone qualified as an overseas elector has a choice as to which constituency he should vote in. In drafting the legislation, we were at pains to avoid giving someone the opportunity to elect in which constituency he wanted to vote. Manifestly, some constituencies are more attractive than others to the individual elector. As the hon. Gentleman has percipiently noticed, the only exception occurs when, on the last occasion that a person was registered in the United Kingdom, he was registered in more than one place. As several hon. Members have acknowledged, it is an inevitable corollary of the existence of multiple registration—with which one may or may not agree—that someone in that position who then moves overseas should have a choice.
I hope that my explanation shows that we have thought about the problem and have sought to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I fear that I cannot offer him any hope that we could remove the option that exists in that narrow case.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Minister for having had the matter considered by his Department. I only wish that some way could be found to limit people's choice. The situation is clearly undesirable, and finding a solution would be better for everyone. This is not a political point.
I hope that we shall be able to return to the substance of the amendments on Report if any new idea comes to mind. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 14, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'seven' and insert 'five'.
No. 66, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
No. 69, in page 2, line 14, after 'seven', insert
'or such other period, being not less than seven years as the Secretary of State may by order determine; and no order shall be made under this section unless a draft therefore has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
No. 30, in clause 3, page 5, line 8, leave out 'seven' and insert 'five'.

Mr. Powell: This group of amendments deals with the first major area of principle with which the Bill is concerned. Essentially, the amendments offer the Committee a choice. The Bill stipulates a period of seven years as the cut-off point for residents overseas beyond which they would not qualify to vote in this country. The

official Opposition's amendment, No. 30 suggests five years. Amendment No. 66 suggests 10 years. The amendment in my name leaves the period at large.
It might not be inappropriate for me to observe that it is only once in a generation that Parliament considers major extensions to the franchise. There have been a number of measures over the years, but the last major debates on the representation of the people occurred in the 1940s. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is the only veteran of those days. It may be another generation before we reconsider the laws relating to our franchise.
Clause 1 deals with an important issue of principle: who should qualify to vote in our elections? In making that choice, we must reflect on the fact that social conditions change over the decades. The social background to the debates of three decades or more ago was very different from that of today. First, it is plain that the population is much more mobile within our country. People move much more often than they used to. Secondly, it is much more likely that people will go abroad than used to be the case—allowing for the circumstances of the couple of years or so following the end of the second world war, when there were still substantial numbers of servicemen abroad. The number of British subjects working abroad at present may well run to a million or more, and they are to be found in every corner of the globe. Many of them—perhaps the great majority—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: How can the hon. Gentleman give a minimum figure of a million when on Second Reading the Secretary of State estimated half a million and when, in answer to a question that I put down, the Home Office admitted that that figure was only an estimate?

Mr. Powell: As the right hon. Gentleman says, my figure is an estimate. I do not accept the estimate made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. My information, which has been drawn from a number of sources, suggests that the figure might be very much higher. At bottom one can only guess.

Sir Edward Gardner: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has seen "The Government Reply to the First Report from the Home Affairs Committee", in paragraph 2.8 of which the Government estimate that
of the roughly three million British citizens resident abroad perhaps 600,000 ar so are of voting age".

Mr. Powell: As there are no accurate statistics, we have to guess. It is clear that conditions exist today which make it much more likely that British subjects will serve abroad for a period. We already make provision to enable Crown servants and British service men, abroad for a temporary period, to vote. Such provision should be extended to a much larger number of people.
The cut-off point is a matter of judgment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has opted for seven years. The House is now being asked to consider a series of different judgments. We are debating not the principle of whether the franchise should be extended to British subjects who are resident overseas, but for what period during their absence they should qualify to be registered. We should remember that registration is the crucial element in determining who is able to vote. The franchise rests only with British subjects resident abroad who have registered to vote. Figures that have been made


available through the Library show that for France, which has a generous law towards its nationals who are resident abroad, although many qualify, few vote. There might be many reasons for that. Although some British subjects have left permanently and are therefore unlikely to want to register, many others have every intention of returning. The date of their return might be determined by a fixed contract. Although some might return after a fixed period of service, others have an open-ended contract and might return at any time.
Information that I have been given through the European Assembly suggests that there might be 250,000 British subjects living in the European Community who would qualify for registration if they were so minded. However, a large proportion of them would be excluded by the seven-year rule. I know people for whom seven years would be too short but who have every intention of returning to and retain substantial links with Britain. I have in mind a man who works in Greece. He is the highest sterling earner in Greece and is able to contribute substantially to our balance of payments through shipping and insurance. His children are at school here and he has a house here on which he pays rates. However, the house is let, so he does not qualify because he is not resident here on the qualifying date. We should also consider those who go to the orient. People who serve companies that are based substantially in the far east have to undergo an extensive period of training to learn Japanese or Chinese, for example. We often hear that the business man who seeks a contract must be in China for 10 years before getting the slightest idea that there might be a contract going. Nevertheless, such people intend to return to Britain at a convenient time.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My hon. Friend seems to be arguing that, once a person who is registered in Britain goes abroad, he should have the privilege of having a share in choosing a Government in Britain although he has no property here, pays no rates, pays no taxes and makes no contribution to Britain. Is there not an argument for saying that people who are abroad in those circumstances and who do not retain their connection with Britain should be told that there is no representation without taxation?

Mr. Powell: There is such an argument but it is not necessarily convincing. The principle of no taxation without representation has not been imported into our law and it would be a bad principle to import. If my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) were appointed a Commissioner to the European Community and he served two terms there lasting eight years, he might be able to retain a residence in Britain which he did not let. He would be able to return to that residence and qualify for registration. He would be able to continue to register because he could afford a second home. The people who will be discriminated against are those who are unable to afford a second home, which is a prerequisite to registration.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is my hon. Friend entirely right? I accept that someone who has a second home and who is resident here on the qualifying date has the franchise, but does he agree that it is not sufficient for that person to be here only during the night of the qualifying day? Must he not be resident in order to justify registration?

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend might have stated the law, but I should be extremely surprised if the practice of registration was not that a person qualified as a result of being resident purely on the qualifying date. My hon. Friend's argument is fascinating and arcane, but I believe that residence on the one day is all that is required. That is why it is not unknown for people who are staying with friends on the relevant night sometimes to find that they are on the electoral roll. The form refers to only one day, although occupiers are told that it can be filled in in advance.
The amendments will set the pattern for the future. It may be a further generation before these matters are substantially reviewed. Although we may discuss whether the clause will stand part of the Bill, we are at present discussing the choice of four different periods — five years, seven years, 10 years and at large. The pace of social change is developing in such a way that we would be wise to opt for the longest period, that is, at large. Many people retain permanent connections in and intend to return to the United Kingdom. They would be excluded even under the seven-year rule. As we have allowed for the principle, it would be appropriate to take it to its full extent by eliminating paragraph (c), which my amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Kaufman: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 14 and 30. As the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said, we are not debating the principle of the expatriate vote. The Opposition remain totally opposed to the clause, and on clause stand part my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) will explain why we oppose it. As the hon. Gentleman said, these amendments deal with the content of the clause rather than with the principle behind it.
The hon. Gentleman advanced his case in a peculiar way. He admitted that he was providing what might be a massive franchise at a guess by offering the expatriate franchise at large. His reason for providing it was extremely dubious — that more British people travel abroad for longer periods now than was the case in previous generations and centuries. That is strange. The number of people who travelled from this country to colonise large parts of the world, which resulted in the British Empire and then the British Commonwealth, was larger in absolute numbers and far larger in proportionate numbers than those who travel abroad on short contracts now. There has been no change in the social circumstances. The change that could justify his amendment, were it to be justified, is the change in the methods of communication, which make it theoretically possible for a ballot paper to be sent to distant parts and returned. The reliability of a ballot paper reaching its destination and being returned on time must take account of the extremely dubious record on reliability of certain overseas post offices, but I do not wish to go into that now.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise a further difference, which is that the improvement in communications and in the media enables people resident abroad to follow and retain an interest in affairs in the United Kingdom to a greater extent than was previously possible?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman means that people resident abroad can gain through newspapers knowledge of what is taking place in the United Kingdom,


it depends on which newspaper they read. If he means that they obtain information via the electronic media, the coverage, for example, in Nepal of affairs in the United Kingdom is minimal, not necessarily representative and, therefore, proportionately satisfactory.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman probably underestimates the effectiveness of electronic communications in conveying news, and the high standard of communications of the BBC world service abroad, which may even be higher than its service within the United Kingdom. When I travelled in the Punjab recently, I heard the results of a match between Brora Rangers and Keith Athletic. That is a remarkable piece of information which few Scottish newspapers carried.

Mr. Kaufman: Presumably the hon. Gentleman would base the casting of his vote on such a consideration.
The principle will be debated on clause stand part. I speak to amendments Nos. 14 and 30, which reduce the period from seven to five years. The Opposition believe that, if the Committee unwisely decides to endorse this principle, it is right to limit its scope.
As the Bill stands with the seven-year period, the expatriate franchise could include two general elections and any intervening by-elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) pointed out, the link with this country of a person who is abroad grows weaker as the period of absence extends. A person who remains out of the United Kingdom for two general elections cannot claim the right to participate in displacing or endorsing a Government under which that person has not lived. Such a person has not paid that Government's taxes, and has not experienced that Government's policies at first hand. His connection with the United Kingdom will have grown tenuous, and will at best be second hand and gained from listening to whatever uncertain communications there may be on the BBC world service and from buying the overseas edition of The Times, the Daily Mail, or whatever.
We have a constituency system of parliamentary elections. Under it a person votes not for a Government but for a Member of Parliament to represent him or her. An overseas voter who has not lived in the constituency in which he or she has a right to vote will not be in direct contact with the issues and problems of the constituency. As a parent, he will not have experienced the education system or been able to campaign about school closures. As a sick person he will not have used the National Health Service, been in hospital or been able to form an opinion about health provision. As a driver, he will not have used the roads or public transport and, therefore, cannot know about those issues. He will not have been a householder who has paid rates and, therefore cannot have an opinion about local government finance policy, the rate support grant policy and other matters which form the nexus of issues on which people base their vote.

Mr. Beith: The same gentleman might have experienced the nationality of his children being threatened by legislation introduced by the Government, might have had his taxation substantially altered, favourably or unfavourably, and might have had the services of the British consulate removed from the place in which he lived.

6 pm

Mr. Kaufman: He might even have been blown up by a British nuclear weapon, in which case the matter would not arise. Such a person will not have been able to play a direct part in the affairs of the constituency, even so limited a part as signing a petition, or the major part of being active in a political party, residents association, ratepayers association, the women's voluntary service, the scouts, ex-service men's associations, or any of the organisations that make up the web of community that exists in Britain and in which those who live outside the country cannot participate.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a person who ordinarily resides abroad were permitted to vote in more than one general election, subsequent to the passing of the Bill, those accumulated votes could influence the outcome of a general election?

Mr. Kaufman: That is true. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has a colleague who was elected with a majority of only seven votes at the general election. It would be perfectly possible in a general election, with the Government's estimate of an average of 800 such votes in each constituency, for a result to be swayed by those votes. In a narrowly contested general election, of which we have had three during the past 20 years, it may be possible for the Government to be changed as a result of the casting of such expatriate votes.
What is more, it is extremely unlikely that someone who benefits from the expatriate franchise will have had personal contact with the candidates opposing the sitting Member of Parliament, although at some stage before he left the country, he may have met or corresponded with the Member. If this fancy franchise is to be invented, it should be limited to one statutory length Parliament, during part of which it is likely that the voter would have had a chance to live under the Government on whom he would be delivering a verdict, and during which he would have observed and experienced the services of the Member of Parliament for whom he would vote. An elector who has lived in Britain for part of the Parliament which will end with the general election in which he has an expatriate vote should have been able to shoulder the burden, if there was any, and to reap the benefit, should there be any, of the Government upon whom he will deliver a verdict. He should also have had the chance to meet the sitting Member of Parliament and to become involved, to some extent, in local issues. He will at least have paid some taxes.
I do not know whether the gentleman who has done the country so much long-distance benefit from Greece has also been sending cheques regularly to the Treasury as part of his contribution to the nation's well-being; he will not have paid rates; he will not have paid domestic telephone bills; he will not have paid fuel charges; he will not have experienced all of the burdens upon which citizens have the right to express an opinion when they cast their votes in a general election.
We believe that five years is a reasonably long time for anyone to be away from the country and yet have a definite intention of returning. We are dealing with the absence from the country of the entire family. If the rest of the family stays in Britain and is resident here, while the person applying for the vote is absent, the latter will almost


certainly retain the potential for a residential qualification. If he has residence, he retains vicariously, and possibly personally, all the obligations except the payment of income tax.
Our amendment stretches the benefit in favour of the applicant, because it could allow him to vote in a by-election in which he would not know the would-be successor to the Member of Parliament who had vacated the seat, although he might know his opponents, if they had previously been candidates in an election when he was still resident in Britain. As by-elections have developed in recent years, they have concentrated much more on special rather than general issues, and on local as well as national issues. If we make it possible for him to vote in a by-election, we shall have extended the benefits of this dubious franchise as wide as they should go.
To go beyond five years—the statutory length of a Parliament—would stretch the theoretical residential qualification to the point of mockery. The fact bears repeating that the British franchise is based not only upon the constituency but on residence, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, albeit in a different context. What makes this franchise fancier than any other fancy franchise that we have had for a long time—certainly since the abolition of the university vote—is that it is based not on residence but on option. That being so, it should not be a franchise at large, as proposed by the hon. Member for Corby, but it should be strictly limited to the length of one normal Parliament. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would allow someone a voice in the Government of the country without having experienced the effects of that Government.
Our contention is that five years is the maximum for which any logical and democratic justification can be found for the expatriate franchise. That is why we shall ask the Committee to accept our amendment.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), which stands also in my name.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) seemed to position himself in an awkward corner as a small islander among the Socialist internationals. To try to attach importance to the size of the group whose enfranchising we are discussing is completely immaterial to the debate. As other hon. Members have said, that becomes more irrational as communications become easier. The communications aspect applies not only to the delivery of the vote, or the ability to vote—the ballot paper—through increasingly speedy mails, but to the ability of those who live abroad, sometimes very far away, to visit Britain regularly.
I speak from personal experience. I lived in the United States of America for almost eight years, which, under the Bill as it stands, would disfranchise me in British elections. However, I had every intention of returning to Britain, as I did, and I visited Britain regularly — sometimes as many as three times a year. That is not a picture of someone losing his roots in or connections with Britain, or of someone experiencing vicariously what the country was going through during that period.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend not attach importance to the issue already raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—that in this country we vote for candidates

in a single constituency, and that the longer the period that has elapsed, the less is the likelihood that the individual will have a close connection with the constituency, particularly as the information which he obtains about affairs in the constituency while he is abroad is likely to be small? I have much sympathy for the proposition that five years, rather than seven, would be appropriate, bearing in mind that that is approximately the length of one Parliament.

Mr. Rathbone: I anticipated that point and will return to it in a moment.
There is nothing peculiar in this country in voting for a candidate in a constituency. It may be called something different in other parts of the world, and almost always is, but in almost all electoral systems people vote for a candidate or, in some cases, a series of candidates from one geographical area.
To take up another point raised by the right hon. Member for Gorton — representation being tied to taxation—we have all been brought up with, and I think abide by, the thesis of no taxation without representation. When that is turned on its head it becomes an incredibly peculiar statement, particularly from the Opposition. By taking that line the right hon. Gentleman is saying that only those who pay taxes should have the right to vote. Many people right now vote legally, straightforwardly and regularly, yet may not pay income tax, capital taxation, local taxes or even indirect taxes because of the narrowness of the way that VAT is drawn. [Interruption.] It is conceivable. The right hon. Gentleman may not have them in his constituency, but I have them in mine. If he ties the right to vote to having established that right through paying taxes, he is starting down a most uncomfortable route.

Dr. Marek: Although the people to whom the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is referring may not pay taxes directly, every time they go to a shop they pay tax. More important, they place themselves under a liability to pay tax.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point. His right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton did not make that point. It would be very difficult to measure when a person had made himself available to pay taxes to an extent sufficient to earn the vote. For instance, on that line of argument, every visitor to this country pays taxes when he makes purchases. Does he automatically have the right to vote? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would argue that.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman said that when he was living in America for eight years he visited this country regularly. Presumably on entering Heathrow he became eligible to pay tax indirectly. Can he tell me who does not pay tax in Britain? I am fascinated by the concept that somebody does not pay tax in some way.

Mr. Rathbone: I have just deployed the argument. If we are referring to direct taxation, I can produce instances. If it is indirect taxation, many people are disfranchised, because they pay taxes from time to time on a visiting basis. On that line of argument they should be given the right to vote. What is marvellous about this discussion is that it illustrates so beautifully how complicated is the whole attempt to tie representation in any way to the


payment of taxes. That was the line that the right hon. Member for Gorton was pursuing. It should not bear any consideration by us.

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend is asking that people who will live perhaps thousands of miles away from this country for the rest of their lives may take part in deciding what sort of Government we should have, even though they make no contribution to the welfare of the country. Surely that is the basic argument, apart from the argument about taxation. The basic question is; what are the people to whom my hon. Friend is referring contributing for the privilege of helping to determine the Government of the country?

Mr. Rathbone: It is difficult to measure. Opposition Members should not laugh, because it is a serious point. The fact that a person is living on the other side of the world does not mean that he is not contributing to the welfare of the country. Many of the people we are talking about are making a direct contribution — perhaps by payments to their families, by payments for educating their children, by a contribution to a pension plan or a retirement fund, or in innumerable other ways. They may also be making a contribution by way of improving exports to the countries in which they are living by developing contacts for future services and exports to those countries. Why should we apply such measurements only to people who are living abroad? Why not apply them to people living in this country? We would tread a very dangerous path if we were to start to try to qualify by behaviour someone's right to vote.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is reaching a point that I wanted to make. Once one starts weighing the contribution to the country, one is indeed in difficulty. Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues might say that those who have been unemployed and supported by the state for a certain time should be deprived of the vote.

Mr. Rathbone: I very much doubt whether that was in the mind of any of my hon. Friends. It is a dishonourable suggestion. All sorts of qualifications — honourable, dishonourable or somewhere between the two — might be applied to individuals. Thank goodness, years ago we moved away from a property or any other qualitative qualification for the right to vote.
On Second Reading I pointed out that other countries operate a reasonable system of establishment of a right to vote in perpetuity for citizens living abroad. There are six bases on which a French citizen can establish a right to vote—in the commune of birth, in the commune of last domicile, in the commune of last residence, in the commune where one of his antecedents is or has been registered, in the commune on the electoral register of which one of his children is registered, or in any commune of choice of more than 30,000 inhabitants. That is a broad spectrum under which a French citizen living abroad, for whatever period of time, can register his right to vote. That encourages the French citizen who is living abroad to participate in what is going on in his country and to vote accordingly.

Mr. Ron Hayward: Does my hon. Friend not find it amazing, as the French people do, that

senior employees of Airbus Industrie, who are contributing to the general wealth of Europe — of Britain, France and Germany—and who are resident in Toulouse, are not able to vote because they have been resident as senior salesmen there for many years? It is a cause of some amazement to the French that British citizens in that position, helping the European export effort, are not able to vote in their own country.

Mr. Rathbone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that pertinent illustration of the point that I was making, showing the contrast with the situation applying to French nationals. Parallels are often drawn between the constitutions of this country and those of France and the United States. Sometimes they are parallel, but in some respects they have diverged, and two of the three have more liberal ways of allowing their citizens to vote.
The United States guarantees the constitutional right to vote to those who live outside the United States of America, subject to two conditions: first, proper registration within the person's state of residence; and, secondly, that the person has a valid United States of America passport, a national identity card or other national registration card. That is a timeless and basic right of United States of America citizens.
One should look warily at the conclusion that a period of time is any illustration of the links that one has with one's country. There are those who have lived abroad for many years, perhaps even decades, who are extremely close to this country, who follow matters here and who visit and have relatives and interests in this country. Though they are incredibly tied to Britain, it is ludicrous that they should not have the right to vote here.
There are those who have gone away for two years and who feel completely divorced from this country, who have no interest in what goes on here, who have re-established their families perhaps on the far side of the world and who never think about Britain, or, if they do, it is of no importance in their lives.
I plead with the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. It is, of course, his intent to try to strike an agreement with the Opposition on an important constitutional development which, as has been pointed out, comes once in a blue moon. In this part of this constitutional reform, a part which will affect so many people—though "many" is not the important quotient—it is for those who might have the right to vote if they did not have the time barrier to that voting that I ask his reconsideration.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) was right to stress the fundamental importance of this debate, because it goes to the underlying principle of our representation. We are, after all, considering the constitution of the House, the manner in which hon. Members are elected to compose the House and, thereby, to decide the nature of the Government and, to some degree, to keep control over the policies and administration of the Government.
Our representation in this House never has been a representation of all who are British citizens, wherever they may be in the world. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pointed out, that is an alternative approach which other democracies, such as France and the United States, have taken. That is not the principle on which this House is, or has been, constituted. It has been constituted


on the principle of geographic identity and representation, and the election of a person responsible for the representation of that constituency. It is, in a sense, a congress of constituencies.
The Government find themselves in the difficulty of falling between the two alternative principles. They have moved away from the principle of geographical representation and have appeared to embrace the principle of citizenship. Yet they have settled down in a middle position, where the principle of citizenship is qualified by the length of last registration in a constituency in the United Kingdom. The anomaly of their position is amusingly illustrated in clause 2 (3) (b), which requires that the declarant must be a British citizen.
Under our existing law, a citizen of the Irish Republic, if he is resident in a constituency in the United Kingdom, is a parliamentary elector in that constituency. The Government do not propose to say in the Bill that he has been registered in a constituency, that he has been away for only seven years and that therefore he can still vote in that constituency. They place citizenship as the deciding criterion of his qualification when he is not resident in the United Kingdom. That illustrates the anomaly and contradiction of attempting to combine a geographical representation, as we essentially have it in this House, with a citizenship representation of those living outside.
Any effort to find a criterion which will satisfactorily identify persons not living in a constituency and who should help in deciding the outcome of an election in that constituency proves to be a failure. One criterion which has been quoted is that of intention, and we have been told, "Here are British citizens who lie abroad for the good of their country," as it used to be said of British ambassadors, "and, dear folk, they have the intention of returning home one day."
Maybe they do, and maybe they do not. There is no means of ascertaining that or of foreseeing its fulfilment. And in any case, where should they then be registered? Should they be registered and able to vote in the constituency in which they were born and perhaps brought up—say a mining constituency in west Yorkshire—even though, owing to the course of their career and success in a commercial life, Torquay, Bournemouth, Eastbourne or some lush area in the home counties may be their intended place of eventual sojourn?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to focus on the constituency in which the vote is to be cast. He should begin by asking whether it is just to deprive such a person of a vote. If the answer is that it is not just, it then becomes a matter of mechanics as to where the vote is cast.

Mr. Powell: If the vote is given the mechanics must follow, but I do not accept any recognisable criterion of justice. We are concerned with the application of a system, and it is incompatible with the system on which this House is constituted that we should extend the franchise to British citizens wherever they may be in the world and whatever may be their relationship with this country. Still less satisfactory has been the criterion of the benefits which they confer on the home country. It would go ill with many of us if we had to explain to the registration officer the benefit that we confer on the United Kingdom before he would agree to register us at the address where we are resident. That illustrates the difficulty of arguing a case on

some preconceived principle of justice or fairness for those who have no local identification in this country to enjoy the franchise.
6.30 pm
The difficulty in which the Government find themselves is shared by the Opposition in endeavouring to modify the principle in the clause as it stands. It was ingenious, I admit, of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to argue that five years is the length of a Parliament and that after five years, if a Parliament has run its full length, there will be another show on the road. However, on any logical consideration, five years is no more satisfactory than seven years as an arbitrary dividing line between those who are identifiable with a constituency by the simple fact that they live there, that their home is in that constituency and that they are part of the local community, and the alternative principle, towards which the Government have partially lurched, of conferring the franchise upon all citizens, wherever they may be. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is on firmer ground in rejecting that principle when we come to consider the clause.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the new principle that we are trying partially to shoehorn into our constitution is not acceptable. Therefore, we shall oppose the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. However, as five years is, so to speak, a lesser evil than the seven years of the unsatisfactory arrangement in the clause as it stands, then five years be it, rather then seven, though there is little of a logical character to be urged in favour of that choice.

Mr. Beith: A fascinating picture has been painted for us tonight, in particular by the Opposition Front Bench. It is the picture of the properly qualified voter, the person who reads a good newspaper and is familiar with the political events of this country, who follows closely in the electronic media, as they were described, the to-ings and fro-ings of British politics, who pays his taxes and rates, who knows, and has had personal contact with, the candidates standing in the constituency in which he intends to vote and who genuinely resides at the place in which he has an electoral qualification. Those are all the characteristics which, it is said, persons living abroad lack. Therefore, they are the reasons why they should not have the franchise extended to them for five years, seven years or for an indefinite period, as proposed at the start of this debate.
All hon. Members know that if those were to be the relevant criteria we could challenge almost every voter who comes into a polling station. Indeed, there is a provision for party agents to be present in the polling stations and to challenge voters. If they could apply those criteria as well as the criteria which they can now apply, such as being the person one claims to be, they would have a field day. Very few voters in any of our parties would get over the threshold. Therefore, we begin with an unrealistic picture. It is unrealistic in this sense. I refer to the last of the qualifications that I mentioned. It assumes that a person is always genuinely resident in the place for which he has an electoral qualification.
The point is that we are now debating not whether we should give the vote for five or seven years to persons who are working abroad, but whether we should extend the franchise to those who have been unable to maintain a residential qualification in this country by means of


ownership or occupation of property. We are talking about extending the franchise to many who are probably the less well off among those who are working abroad: those who have been unable to preserve their electoral rights in Britain by owning property and filling in forms relating to that property in the United Kingdom.
As was pointed out earlier, those who are reasonably well off will probably have opted, for other reasons, to maintain a residence in this country and perhaps not to let it out, so as to be in a position to fill in annually the form that keeps them on the electoral register. As many hon. Members know, it is by no means necessary to complete the householder's form year after year in order to remain on the electoral register. The tendency is for names to remain on the register unless evidence is produced that they ought to be taken off it. Therefore, very many people who now live overseas, some of whom may suffer from the serious disadvantages mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—that they have not read the overseas edition of The Times and have not paid their taxes—are qualified to vote because of their occupation of property in this country, while others do not qualify.
It is to the generally less well endowed category, those who have been unable to preserve a residential qualification in this country, that the amendments to this clause are addressed. They include people who work for international institutions like the United Nations, the European Community, people in trading activities, missionaries and those who are engaged in low-paid service overseas, including an increasing number of manual workers. If there has been a social change in recent years, it is probably reflected by the increase in the number of manual workers who go, for example, to work for a number of years in the Gulf states, where work is available in the construction industry.
Therefore, we are referring to a range of people, some of whom have votes and some of whom do not, entirely according to whether they have been able to maintain property in this country. There is no reason to assume, as some hon. Members who have criticised this proposal have assumed, that links with this country tend to diminish as time passes. I know of no basis for that assumption. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to suggest that those who are forced to be absent from this country for a longer period develop an increasing affection for, and sometimes a concern to return to, this country. There is no evidence to suggest that a period of absence from this country reduces involvement and commitment.
I am very glad that tonight the right hon. Member for Gorton did not use the arguments relating to bank robbers who are resident in Spain—arguments which seemed to carry with them the underlying assumption that all of those who live abroad are tarred with the same brush and display some kind of basic disloyalty to this country. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is saving those arguments for the debate on clause stand apart, but he has concentrated until now upon the more limited argument relating to qualification.
The Government sought initially to exercise a judgment about the period for which it was reasonable to give an electoral qualification to those who had been unable to preserve one by having maintained a residence in this country. The Government decided upon seven years. If

newspaper reports are to be believed, there is reason to believe that the Government may be persuaded by the Labour party's argument that if we are to extend the franchise we should do so only for five years, not for seven, thus reducing the effect to the period of one Parliament and one general election. I am opposed to that reduction. I have put down an amendment stating that we should consider a period of 10 years. That period might be more widely accepted.
I sympathise with the argument of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that there is no obvious reason for setting a time limit upon this qualification. I accept the view that the qualification can continue indefinitely. Indeed, there are a very large number of people who have looked for redress of what they consider to be an injustice in this legislation but who will not get it because they have already been working abroad for more than five or seven years and, in doing so, have been serving the interests of this country.
There is something fundamentally ill-advised about bringing forward a legislative proposal that is designed to remedy an injustice, only to find that the proposal does not serve to remedy the grievance. The sense of injustice is perhaps greatest among those who have been working abroad for five, six, seven, eight, or 10 years, very many of whom are working in the interests of this country. If those people, by the limitations imposed by these amendments, do not get relief from injustice, what purpose have we served? That is why I am so critical of a limitation even to seven years. I am even more critical of a limitation to five years. I believe that we have aroused expectations. Indeed, the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Conservative party conference helped to arouse the expectation that something would be done about what is felt to be a real grievance.
It is certainly felt to be a grievance when set alongside the practice of so many other countries which rate their citizenship more highly than do we. British citizens working abroad feel that almost every other country in the world sets a greater store by the standing of its citizens working abroad and makes a more genuine assumption about their loyalty than do the British Government. That feeling will be even stronger and will not be assuaged if we give the impression that we are legislating to remove this grievance, and yet so limit the offer—in this case five years—that many will not benefit at all, while those who do benefit will be lucky if they get a vote at one general election.
Charles Hargrove, better known as a former correspondent of The Times, but now the chairman of the British Conservative Association in France, makes the point in a letter which he has written to my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party. He said:
The Government has at last acknowledged that voting rights should be attached to British citizenship but has nevertheless included a restriction that is justifiable neither in principle nor in practical politics, i.e., to limit the voting right to those who have been abroad for less than seven years—on the grounds that, beyond this time limit, a Briton's links with his mother country would have become too tenuous. We argue from direct personal experience that the facts belie this assumption. Loyalty to Britain, and the willingness to defend and promote British interests, cannot be determined by a fixed time limit.


I share his view and I think that it is a mistake for the House to arouse the expectation that the Bill will remedy a real sense of injustice and then so to limit that remedy that it does not prove to be a remedy at all.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The approach of the right hon. Members for South Down (Mr. Powell) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to this matter is uncharacteristically narrow. The approach of the right hon. Member for South Down has essentially been to ask whether it is right that a person resident abroad should have a vote in a constituency from which he has long departed. Answering that question in the negative, he goes on to be critical of the general approach adopted by the Government. That is the wrong approach for the reason that I shall shortly mention. The first question to ask is whether it is right to deprive of a vote a British citizen who intends to return. If the answer is that it is not right to deprive such a person of a vote, we have a lesser question as to the place of voting.
The Labour party, in this matter as in others, is extremely reluctant to see the franchise enlarged. Indeed, it is putting itself in the rather bizarre position, as has been described by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), of arguing in favour of something approaching a property, rate-paying, tax-paying, education—[Interruption.]—or residential qualification. The right hon. Members for South Down and for Gorton ignore the much broader consideration which is raised in the debate — the concept of loyalty, of allegiance, of affinity. That is a matter which the right hon. Member for South Down often comes to in other contexts — allegiance, affinity, loyalty or blood. All those justify the proposition that British citizens resident abroad have, prima facie, a right to vote.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as a sign of loyalty to nip off to the Channel Islands or somewhere else to dodge tax?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. I shall come to it later when the House deals with amendment No. 29 which he has tabled. I support amendment No. 29 because it is undesirable that people who have renounced their domicile of origin should have a vote. But that is a narrow point. I take his point in so far as it goes, but it does not go to the root of the matter. The root of the matter is allegiance and affinity. If a person has undiluted allegiance and affinity to Britain, prima facie he has a right to vote.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he evaluates allegiance, loyalty and affinity? If he can define and judge whether somebody truly has loyalty and allegiance, he may carry more hon. Members with him, but I suspect that with such abstract concepts he will be hard put to say that he can identify loyalty in one man but not in another.

Mr. Hogg: There are two answers to the question that the hon. Gentleman has fairly posed. The first is that if a person does not have the allegiance and affinity of which I have spoken he is not likely to want to cast a vote. In a sense, the casting of a vote is the manifestation of the affinity and allegiance. I accept that that is a subjective

judgment and the hon. Gentleman may take a different view, but I think that it is a view that will be shared by many hon. Members.
In the end it comes to a question of balance. Where do we strike the balance in such matters? I would rather ensure that everybody who deserves a vote has a vote, even if it includes a few unworthy folk, rather than, in the desire to exclude all unworthy folk, exclude people who should, in all conscience, have a vote. I would rather err on the side of enlarging the franchise than on the side of restricting it. Those are the two answers that I would give to the hon. Gentleman.
I have tabled amendments Nos. 66 and 69. Amendment No. 66 provides for the same term of 10 years as that proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. There is no great magic in seven or 10 years, but because I am in favour of enlarging the period I go for 10 rather than seven or five years.
Amendment No. 69 is a little more important because it gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department the power to alter the period. I envisage a power to extend what I hope will be a 10-year period to a longer period, subject to an affirmative resolution of the House. The justification for that is that in the course of time many of the fears that have been put forward in the debate will seem to be misplaced. People will come to realise the injustice of excluding people from the franchise. If that is the view, it is right that we should enlarge the period. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), it is rare that the House has a chance to discuss election matters of this kind. To find time for primary legislation to enlarge the period would be difficult. Therefore, I prefer to do it by way of delegated legislation subject to an affirmative resolution of the House.

Mr. Fisher: By using the word "subjective" the hon. Gentleman gives away his case. He is making a value judgment about those abstract virtues which he suggests should be the qualification. The charm of the right to vote by a residential qualification is that no value judgment is made. If the hon. Gentleman has to make a value judgment, he puts himself in an impossible position. He can surely see the distinction between an objective test and a subjective value judgment.

Mr. Hogg: All questions that deal with justice are in the end subjective in their character. What is just or unjust is essentially a subjective test. Absolute standards cannot be applied. I am asking the House to form a collective view, albeit subjective, as to what is just, and I have put forward my arguments.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that were amendment No. 69 to become law it would give the Secretary of State an awesome power to alter the voting pattern in Britain? He could shorten or lengthen the period depending on whether it was in his interests. That would make it a recipe for gerrymandering.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the real purport of amendment No. 69. It deals only with the period relevant to the overseas voter. That is the only period that can be altered — in this case from seven years to whatever period might be desired. But it is subject to an affirmative resolution of the House, not a negative resolution. It must have the affirmative approval of the


House. That is a device to avoid the difficulty of bringing the matter back by way of primary legislation. If we rely on that, we shall never have the matter back in our lifetime.

Mr. Bermingham: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman misses the point. If the amendment were to become part of the Bill the Secretary of State would be in a position, if he thought it in his interests to do so, to pass a resolution in order to enhance the period for the overseas voter. The Secretary of State tends to belong to the governing party which tends to command a majority in the House. Therefore, for purely political ends the Secretary of State could alter the period to his party's advantage, and that is something that we have never permitted.

Mr. Hogg: As I would expect of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), that is an ingenious argument, but, as I would also expect of him, it is wholly wrong, for this cogent reason. We cannot tell, for example, how many overseas voters there are.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Have a guess.

Mr. Hogg: Far less can we tell what are the political affiliations of overseas voters. I am sure that, being well advised, they are all Conservatives, but that may change in the course of time.
The point I seek to make is that no Secretary of State can form a very clear view of the political affiliations of overseas voters. If we are indeed vexed with this question, we should be much more vexed with the position which enables the Prime Minister to call an election as and when the Prime Minister chooses. That is a much greater power in this context than any power that the Bill may give to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I seek to reply first to the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his remarks, when he said that the question—and he seemed to imply the sole question—that we should ask is whether it is unjust for individuals who are expatriates from the country to be denied the vote. He seemed to suggest that that was the sole matter that we had to decide and that that injustice should be remedied.
I can understand that many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people serving this country perfectly well—and, of course retaining allegiance to this country—all over the world are in that position and feel that sense of grievance. It may be that sense of grievance partly which has given rise to the amendment, although I shall come to some more esoteric points in a moment. But it cannot be that that is the sole question to be decided. However much our sympathy may be for persons placed in that situation, it is the responsibility—not the right, but the duty—of the House of Commons to decide what would be the effect of applying that principle to the constitution of the country as it currently operates.
The argument that has been put forward on this aspect—and the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to reply to it — is overwhelming. If the vote is afforded to expatriates, some advantage may be given in removing an injustice for some individuals, but serious injury will be

inflicted on the constitution. That has to be taken into account. Those matters must be accepted, or at least understood and argued in the House of Commons by hon. Members.
I do not expect the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to apply his mind to these matters, because the Liberal party has long since abandoned any idea of sustaining the principle that we should uphold the doctrine that a Member of Parliament represents his constituency. Most hon. Members have considered that to be a very important principle. Indeed, I believe it is one of the principles that have enabled our democracy to be a better and more adult democracy in some respects than democracies of many other countries. I say that in no boasting or, I hope, chauvinistic spirit. However, we know that the Liberal party and, in latter days, catching up a little breathlessly, the Social Democratic alliance, have long since abandoned that principle on the high ground that it would suit their members to move a system of proportional representation. They have not concealed their view. Nobody can accuse them of that. But they have elevated it into the highest principle of all.
On some occasions the leader of the Social Democrats, or the leader of the Liberals—I forget which, but I dare say that they are interchangeable in this respect, if not in others—has insisted that, after any election in which there was a balance, the most essential principle that would need to be settled beyond anything to deal with unemployment, the cost of living, foreign policy or nuclear weapons would be satisfying the demand of the Social Democrats and Liberals for proportional representation. Thus, the Social Democrats and the Liberals elevate this to a very high place. It cannot be placed higher. If that is the situation, we do not expect any sympathy from them.
I was slightly surprised by the second reason advanced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for wanting to tear up this part of the constitution. It was that high expectations on this subject were aroused at the Conservative party conference, and he thought that those expectations should be satisfied. It is the first time that I have ever heard a spokesman for the Liberal party say that we must satisfy that monstrous regiment of men and women who assemble at the Conservative party conference. I shall come to them in a moment because they are relevant to the debate. I do not expect for a moment that we shall have any support from the Liberal party or the latter-come-lately Social Democrats on the subject. A few years ago they were not so passionate about proportional representation and tearing up the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituency, but they are now. However, I shall leave them aside.
I agree entirely with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The amendment that he has tabled is not, of course, even a second best; nor does he claim it to be so. He said that it is a modification of one of the worst parts of the Bill. It is, I suppose, one of the simplest axioms of our modern politics that any amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend is better than one tabled by the Home Secretary. In this case, I am sure that that is true. On that basis alone, I would be happy to go into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend, just as I am happy to accept his views on almost every subject. I do that in this case with slight reluctance, as he will understand, for the very arguments that he advanced. It is difficult to make anything resembling a silk purse out of this sow's ear of


a Bill. It cannot be done. My right hon. Friend can have no great expectation of success in that enterprise. If any Member could do it, my right hon. Friend could, but it cannot be done. I suppose that that is the worst part of a bad Bill.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who supports the amendment, got into some very deep water. He said that the numbers do not count. The implication of the hon. Member for Grantham is that the numbers do not count. Under the present arrangements, if the numbers of people voting in a general election to decide the Government of a country were to be the equivalent of, say, half the total electorate, would anybody be fool enough to suggest that it would not matter if half of them paid taxes and half did not?
The principle of the numbers is, therefore, very important. The numbers of those who are to be included in the Bill is important. We have not been given the answers yet, and we do not know whether we shall be advised of them. I know that an amendment has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton which deals specifically with this matter. That amendment, as I understand it, will not allow the Government to go ahead with the Bill until they have given detailed evidence of the numbers involved. Of course we are entitled to know what the numbers are, because they could significantly alter the situation.
The argument of the hon. Member for Grantham, that many people in the country do not pay taxes, is nonsense. The Bill proposes — and this is novel in our constitutional procedure, as far as I know—that people who do not pay taxes are deliberately to be given votes. If that principle is to be incorporated in our constitutional or electoral practice, it ought to have been properly discussed. According to the Liberal party, it was discussed at the Conservative party conference, and that is enough for the Liberal party. As long as it was discussed there and got a thumping vote, the Liberals support it.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept, as I did, that the Home Secretary appeared to be addressing himself at the time not to the Conservative party conference but to a far wider audience, and that the expectations that he aroused were not in that body but among those overseas who might obtain the vote? Should a person in this country who, by the very extent of his poverty, has had no income and therefore has paid no taxes for a period of time be deprived of the vote?

7 pm

Mr. Foot: I am not in favour of depriving anyone of the vote if he has residential qualifications in this country. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to build the whole of his great fabric of change in the constitution on that slender basis, the edifice will collapse even quicker than the structure that he proposed in his previous argument, and that was pretty weak. The hon. Gentleman should think rather more carefully. We are talking about a considerable number of people in different parts of the world who will have the power to settle elections in this country and results in individual constituencies without having participated in any of the normal processes of electoral appeal.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has poured scorn on all the methods by which we, as humdrum candidates, try to put over our views—for example, the

reading of newspapers. I suppose that people are still entitled to read The Times if they want to do so and not to be jeered at by representatives of the Liberal party for engaging in such an extraordinary activity. I do not claim that I am always successful in elections, but the methods by which we decide them are pretty good. If the methods are to be changed, there must be good reasons for doing so.
By considering these issues in Committee, I believe that we are illustrating our case even more clearly than if we were having a full discussion on the principle. That is often the result of detailed discussion on what the Government propose. It is a form of discussion which exposes their case all the more clearly. In this instance it has exposed the fact that there should have been proper discussion between the parties. I know that the Home Secretary mocks that view. I know also that he has the Select Committee up his sleeve, or something of that sort. However, we do not have government by Select Committees. Select Committees are not fitting substitutes for proper consultation between the parties. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who moved the amendment, said that there had been hardly any discussions or debates on Representation of the People Bills since the 1945 Parliament, of which I was a member. I think that there have been more debates than the hon. Gentleman recalls, but I take his point.
It is true that this is a major Bill which involves an unspecified extension of the franchise in a way that we considered previously not to be right and which many of us still believe to be wrong in principle. If the Government wanted to go ahead with such a proposition, it was their duty to find the means whereby there could be proper and open discussion. I am not suggesting that there should have been secret talks, talks between the usual channels, or any hugger-muggery. The Government should have arranged for open discussions to take place. They are proposing to bring 500,000 or 1 million people into the franchise, whichever party they may vote for. Of course, we all have our guesses about that. There must be discussion with the other parties, even if the Liberal party does not want to attend. The Government should have made their proposal and we should have discussed it. If that had been done, we would have been able to consider these matters properly.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who always raises these matters to the very highest plateau of moral integrity, suggested that the Government have merely misunderstood the situation. I wonder whether they do not understand it all too well. A simpler explanation of their behaviour is that they preferred not to have discussions with the Opposition. In taking that view, the opportunity for discussion is removed and discussion becomes superfluous. As I said on Second Reading, they could have arranged a Speaker's Conference. That would have allowed the issue to be brought out in the open, and people would then have been aware of what the Government were proposing. Perhaps a compromise could have been reached, but I would not have been in favour of it. I believe that the principle of expatriate votes is fundamentally wrong in our constitution. That is why we shall do our best to resist clause 1.
I repeat that it is my view that the Bill was not introduced in a proper way. Presumably the Bill was discussed by the Cabinet. We are talking about the sort of Bill that is introduced only once in half a century, and I


suppose that the Bill might have been discussed even by the present Cabinet. When it was discussed, I am sure that the interests of the Conservative party were well taken into account. After all, it would have had its representative sitting with them. The spokesman, chairman or manager of Conservative Central Office, whatever he is called, is a Minister and he could have been present. I am sure that that precaution was taken. In this instance he might have plucked up courage and said a few words.
I am sure that the Government received guidance. Even if that did not happen in open Cabinet in case it might sneak out 30 years later, I am sure that consultations took place with Conservative Central Office before the Government went ahead with the Bill. One can imagine Conservative Central Office saying, "It is all right with us, boys"—or girls, or whatever one chooses to say. "We think that you should go ahead. Do not worry. If you read the report of the Select Committee, you might find a few examples that can be used to bolster your case. Try to dress it up as if it is a real constitutional proposal." I do not believe that it is anything of the sort. If this part of the Bill is enacted, greater benefit will be brought to the Conservative party than to any other party. That is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to pursue it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has been condemning the Government in robust terms and pouring scorn on the Select Committee's report. Has he forgotten that clause 1 is more restrictive than the enlargement of the franchise that is proposed in paragraph 52 of the Select Committee's report, and that two of the Labour Opposition's Front Bench home affairs spokesmen were parties to the Select Committee's recommendation?

Mr. Foot: All the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised were discussed on Second Reading. I shall be happy to debate them again now and to answer his questions. Events have illustrated the wisdom of what I and others have said.
It is improper for a Government to say that a Select Committee should be designated as a substitute for proper consultation between the parties or as a substitute for a Speaker's Conference. One of the reasons why Speaker's Conferences have had authority is that they have not been used too often. When major changes have been proposed, there have been attempts by almost all Governments to try to reach sensible agreements. The Government are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in not taking that course. That is why we should sling out the whole Bill if we have the chance to do so. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton that we should try to improve parts of it if we can.
When we come to decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, we shall have the opportunity for a fuller debate. Let us take the opportunity to sling out the entire clause and to trim down the Bill to the clauses which can decently be presented to the House of Commons. If that is done, it will be a slim Bill.

Sir Edward Gardner: I am glad to be able to take up some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). He always makes a compelling and engaging speech even though the arguments that he adduces are entirely unconvincing, as they have been

today. He joins the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in suggesting that there is no need in justice, logic or necessity to introduce the new right that will be created by clause 1, which will give those living abroad the right to vote in our elections.
This measure is no novelty. It does no injury to the constitution. As the Committee will appreciate, we have this provision already. Already people living abroad are entitled by statute to vote in our general elections by proxy or by post. They are known as people with the right to service votes—members of the armed forces and their wives or husbands, members of the Diplomatic Service and the Crown service generally. A number of other people have the privilege of being able to decide by their vote at an election this country's future course and conduct.
The clause seeks to extend that right in the name of justice to those people who are at present isolated from this country and frustrated in their desires to give guidance about the future conduct of the Government. Therefore, it seems to me, as I hope it seems to most hon. Members, that that principle, against which the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and for South Down have been arguing—they say that that principle should not exist and that, if accepted, it will damage the constitution—should be upheld and welcomed by the Committee.
Clause 1 and the amendments we are considering will extend the franchise to people who will thereby benefit. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a question. Perhaps I am entering the realms of speculation and the imponderable, but it is a responsible question to which I hope I shall receive a reliable answer. The Government, in their reply to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee, suggested that about 3 million British citizens are living abroad and that about 600,000 of them would receive the vote because they had lived abroad for seven years. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assist the Committee by estimating how many British citizens will be enfranchised if the Bill's provisions come into force, first, for people living abroad for seven years and, secondly, for people living abroad for five years?
We are really trying to decide whether we should shorten or lengthen the time a person may live abroad without disqualifying him or her from the privilege of having a vote. Opposition amendment No. 14 suggests a period of five years. I am not entirely convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who suggested that the five-year period should be accepted because that is the statutory life of a Parliament. I do not believe that that is necessarily the yardstick that should be applied in deciding how long or how short the period should be.
7.15 pm
I hope that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent accepts, in spite of the fact that he does not appear to put much value on the findings and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, that the Committee's recommendations, as with all good Select Committees, were based upon the consideration of a considerable quantity of evidence in testimony and documentary form. The Government, having considered the Committee's evidence and having concluded that that evidence could be acted upon, decided that the period during which a person could


remain abroad and retain the vote should be seven years. The Government may be right or they may be wrong—that is a judgment.
As the Bill is drafted, the period is seven years. I shall not argue that that period is precisely right or wholly wrong or something that we should reconsider. One can play around with the figure and state, as in amendment No. 66, that it should be 10 years or state, as in another amendment, that there should be no limit, as my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) have argued. One takes into account those good and respectable arguments. But it is all guesswork. No one can pretend—I certainly will not pretend on anyone's behalf — that that guesswork is reliable. We must come to some conclusion.
I am opposed to those of my hon. Friends who believe that there should be no limit. I believe that there should be a restriction. At least for an experimental period, we could have a five-year or seven-year limit. I have two reasons for suggesting that the period should be five years. First, if the Government are prepared to compromise and to come down from a seven-year period to a five-year period, they will not breach any principle. Secondly, this is a constitutional Bill. When we discuss a constitutional instrument, it is essential that we should try, if possible, to have not just a majority in favour but a consensus. By accepting the Opposition's suggestion of five years, we have a better chance of obtaining a consensus than if we voted for seven years. If I may say so, because I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary cannot say this for himself, my right hon. and learned Friend will have been wise in the extreme in deciding, as I hope he will, to accept the five-year period. We badly need the Bill, and we need to remove all obstacles to its passage.

Mr. Bermingham: This measure will extend the franchise, and I have never been in favour of extending the franchise. I shall give my reasons when the Committee considers whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. This is not the time to advance those arguments because we could range widely in discussing these matters.
If we are to extend the franchise, we must fix a time limit, because there comes a time when a person who has gone abroad ceases to have any realistic contact with the United Kingdom.
The argument has been advanced that there should be no limit. The hon. Gentleman who advanced it should consider for a moment the reality of what he was saying. The country receives many immigrants and it is one from which many people emigrate. In effect, he was saying that as years pass and more and more people go abroad we could reach the point when the number of people abroad entitled to vote for an unlimited period could well exceed 8 million.
I am a strong supporter of Select Committees. When Select Committees make recommendations, they are what they are—advice arrived at from the evidence they have heard. They rely upon the Government replying to the recommendations and the House debating them. A Select Committee in no way believes that it can impose its rule upon the House. It merely gathers evidence and expresses opinions. It is against that background that we look at the work of Select Committees.
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) seemed to think that the number involved in

extending the franchise was about 600,000. I have studied the number of people who voted in the last general election. It was approximately 31·6 million, and 600,000 is 1·5 per cent. of that. If one then discounts that 1·5 per cent. by the average turn-out figure of approximately two thirds, one arrives at the figure that the overseas voting content will be approximately a 1 per cent. addition to the electorate. It has been known for 1 per cent. to decide general elections.
I put that matter before the Committee because when I was exchanging views with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) it seemed that he entirely missed the point. I ask the Committee to reject amendment No. 69 decisively because although I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's powers of logic, occasionally, with great respect to him, he seems to miss the point. We shall soon begin to know the number of persons involved in the exercise because they will be recorded constituency by constituency as the votes are registered.
In this day of modern science, it does not take too much ingenuity to work out how to poll those who are resident abroad and who seek to vote in our general elections. It would not be beyond the wit of the then Secretary of State to ascertain whether the total number of external electors—if I may put it that way—were of benefit to his or her party. It is against that background that I felt that this measure would put an intolerable strain upon the democratic political system. That is why I urge the Committee to reject amendment No. 69. It contains basic law. It puts a future Secretary of State in an almost intolerable position. When the matter is thought out logically, we can see that it is not one that we would wish on any Secretary of State.
I similarly ask that amendment No. 66 be rejected because 10 years is too long, for all the reasons that have been advanced. If we have to accept the idea of external voting, five years seems a sensible compromise.

Mr. Hayward: I was interested in the contributions of the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for South Down (Mr. Powell) who, in essence, said that we should not make the change because this is the constitution as it stands. They were implying that the constitution is unchangeable. We should recognise, after reviewing these matters over the years, that change is necessary. Over many centuries we have made many valuable changes to the constitution, such as the enfranchisement of females. If we pursue the argument that we should not change the constitution, we would never have given women the vote. I am aware that there are those who hold the view that it was not a good idea.
Circumstances change. As against 20 years ago, there are many people who do valuable work abroad on behalf of this country. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked whether the figures were large or small. The figures are reasonable, and they are likely to grow. For that reason, we should make the change. As we enter into more and more agreements, whether they be industrial or commercial, or in terms of the United Nations or the EEC, more people will work abroad. For that reason, I support the clause which introduces the overseas franchise.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that, as the periods of such international agreements become longer, it is important that people should be allowed to remain enfranchised in this country


for longer. Many people already work in industry in Europe and have been abroad for more than seven years. It is likely that they will be there for seven, 10 or 15 years. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not present, but what would happen if Ferranti in his constituency took money from the ESPRIT programme in the EEC, in association with Padua or Rome universities, and many of Ferranti's employees worked there for several years? They would be disfranchised. That is unacceptable. Having accepted the principle that we should enfranchise people who are resident overseas, we should accept it in full and not put a time limit on it.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Before I give my reasons for doing so, I wish to defend the Home Secretary against the accusation that he proceeded improperly in arriving at his conclusion as to how the Bill should be constructed on this point.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was, as usual, locked with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in historical conservatism. He put forward the argument that because the Home Secretary had not followed the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference there was something improper about proceeding with this method of extending the franchise.
I must remind the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of how the Labour party, when in government, treated electoral conferences. He will recall that, because he was there. I was not a Minister at the time, but I was a member of the electoral conference. He will recall that an electoral conference in the 1960s proposed that the voting age should be reduced from 21 to 20. The Labour Government at that time properly took the view that that was inappropriate, and they rejected the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. There was nothing sacrosanct about it.
Lest the right hon. Gentleman should peddle the illusion that Speakers' Conferences are in some way more pure and less sullied by political consideration than Cabinet discussions or the proceedings of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, let me tell him of my experience at the hands of one of his colleagues when, at a second Speaker's Conference on electoral law, the issue of votes for holidaymakers was considered. I voted in favour of extending the franchise to holidaymakers. I was summoned by a right hon. colleague of the right hon. Gentleman to explain why I voted against—

Mr. Foot: Bill Rodgers.

Mr. Maclennan: If I am forced to divulge the identity, I shall tell the House that it was the then deputy leader of the Labour party who, on the instructions of a Cabinet Committee, summoned me to explain why I had voted against Labour party policy handed down by Transport house.
It is nonsense for the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent now to don a white sheet and speak as though this were some great matter of principle. He is an honourable man who has been in the House long enough to beguile us with historical recollections, but his stance today is clearly humbug. What is the great principle whereby he opposes the extension of the franchise? He says that we need to know how many people will be involved. If he had been

more frank, he might have said that it depended upon how many more Conservative voters the Government would reap. The number can scarcely be regarded as a matter of principle, and is in any event incalculable.
7.30 pm
The hon. Member for South Down stood firm on conservative historical grounds—the constitution as it is and always should be. That cannot satisfy those of us who see British constitutional history as a process of development and change to reflect social and political changes. One of the most important political changes in the lifetime of most of the participants in this debate has been the extent to which British citizens now travel, live and work abroad, not just to serve their own narrow interests, but to serve their country's interests. They stay abroad for long periods, but they return from time to time and they are very familiar with what is going on here. As the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, communications have also greatly improved in our lifetime. Residents abroad almost certainly have as sharp an awareness of the issues involved in a general election as many people resident in this country.
In my judgment, residence is not as sound a principle on which to stand as the principle of justice. It has long been recognised in the United States and in France that a citizen's most important right is to seek to influence the complexion of the democratic Government of the country to which he belongs. I freely confess that my original thinking and that of my party on this was not dissimilar to that of the Home Secretary on Second Reading. We felt that there might be some diminution over time in the citizen's links with his home country and a consequent decline in interest in the outcome of elections. I thought that on balance that argument suggested the need for some time limit on the exercise of the right to vote, but that has been overborne in my mind by the wider view so eloquently expressed by the hon. Members for Corby and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that citizenship should carry the right to vote.
I hope that if the Committee divides on this issue, all Members will be permitted to vote freely, without the imposition of the usual party sanctions, and to exercise their individual judgment. I intend to vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Corby. If that fails, I shall vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as second best. Indeed, my hon. Friend himself made it plain that he preferred the wider proposition of the hon. Member for Corby.
We are unlikely to have the opportunity to change this law for a long time. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham, which would allow alterations through secondary legislation subject to affirmative resolution, is thus deserving of favour if the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Corby is not carried. Nevertheless, it is preferable to arrive at a conclusion today by means of the primary legislation before us. If the Home Secretary's mind has also been changed since he last spoke on this matter, I hope that it has moved in the same direction as my own.

Mr. Bruinvels: On Second Reading I said that the Bill would give many more people the right to vote. In the past, British subjects resident overseas have been unfairly denied the franchise. The number involved is about


600,000, of whom 100,000 work in the European Community. I see no reason why those people should not have the right to vote.
I was not surprised that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) opposed the change as I recall the boundary commission report which failed to appear until after the 1970 election. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman supported the abolition of the House of Lords, which I should have thought would be a fairly major constitutional change. His attitude seems to depend very much on the story and flavour of the day.
The majority of people living overseas still pay taxes and they pay rates on homes in this country. As house owners, they are responsible people. I cannot see how the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) can imply that they act irresponsibly. In my view, they are not tax exiles, and it is time that they had the right to vote. This is democracy at work and the whole Committee should support it. After all, the right to vote is one of the most important rights and privileges of a citizen. Ambassadors and senior diplomats based abroad have the right to vote, as do service men stationed abroad, and the system seems to work well. So what is everyone worried about now?
The people involved, of course, must keep their names on the register. That has always concerned me, because, if they do not do that, they lose their connection with a particular constituency. If, however, they maintain their names on the register—and as house owners they should do so—they ought to be entitled to vote. Are they likely to return to Great Britain or Northern Ireland? That is the test. If the answer is yes, I cannot see why they should not be given the vote. There is no uncertainty in such a case; they have made their position clear.
On 10 December, I said that people living abroad should be allowed to vote, but that seven years was a rather long period and I hoped that the period would be shorter. I refer hon. Members to column 815 of the Official Report. Clearly, I must be in favour of a five-year term. However, I also said that the list should be continually checked. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, maintained that a number of gentlemen living overseas have failed to have their names removed from the register. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would agree with me that it is against the law for a person to keep his name on the register after he has left his house permanently. I believe that the law would be brought heavily to bear upon those who offend against electoral practices.
As I have made plain, I favour amendment No. 14. I believe that five years is the right length of time. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Gorton, because five years is about the length of time between one general election and another. Paragraph 2.7 of "The Government reply to the First Report from the Home Affairs Committee" suggests that, as time drags on, the link with the United Kingdom becomes more tenuous. Therefore, any absence of more than five years might well justify one in supporting the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. In any case, is anyone likely to keep a house for longer than five years? I doubt it.
Throughout the five-year period, the resident abroad is likely to be represented by the same Member of Parliament. He is likely to come to this country for holidays, and it is likely that his salary will be paid here. He will have a real connection with the United Kingdom.

Those who work overseas but keep up their connections with the United Kingdom would strongly resent some of the allegations that have been made about them today. They are not rogues. They are promoting this country, improving business and increasing our exports. Of course, they must nominate their most recent address, and that will be made clear.
What is wrong with a voice from abroad being heard in Britain? If someone has a contribution to make, let him make it.

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: I will give way for one moment only.

Mr. Barron: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he seems to be very knowledgeable about the situation. Can he tell us how many more people are likely to appear on the electoral register as a result of this measure?

Mr. Bruinvels: I said at the beginning of my speech that 600,000 people would be likely to benefit — 100,000 of them in the EEC. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) seems to have been blinded by my scientific knowledge. I believe that up to 600,000 people will be involved. However, I shall enter one caveat, as the hon. Gentleman will hear later.
I cannot support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). That amendment would lead to an infinity. There must be an acid test. The Committee would be shirking its duties and responsibilities if it were to vote for the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is now really my honourable friend, as he is no longer a Whip. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He is keen that the voting right should last for no more than seven years. However, he has also put his name to amendment No. 66, which stipulates 10 years. I believe that both are wrong. The figure should be five. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that the measures should be passed by both Houses of Parliament, but I believe that it should be done now rather than later.
The Bill is good news. I hope that British citizens resident overseas will now exercise their right. I am sure that they will.

Mr. Stanbrook: If there were any logic or any consistency of approach in the Government's proposals, or even any simplicity — so that they were at least consistent with the range of our law on the subject—they would have some merit. However, they lack logic and consistency. So, with respect, do all the amendments.
Our electoral roll consists of British subjects, Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic living in this country. The essential qualification is residence in this country. It does not matter that not all the voters are British citizens. It does not matter that many of them have their origins abroad.
What happens when the Government propose to enlarge the franchise? They do not extend to those living overseas the franchise that I have described. They extend a right to vote to people who have British citizenship. That is a special category of nationality not shared by everyone registered here or everyone on the existing electoral roll. If we are to be consistent, these proposals should apply to


those who are entitled by reason of residence here to a vote, even though their origins may lie in the Republic of India or in Argentina.
Equally, we could have said that the franchise should be restricted to British citizens, so excluding those who do not owe allegiance to Her Majesty. That solution would be consistent and logical. I believe that it would be right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) believes that votes are such a good thing that they should be given to as many people as possible, and that no one should be deprived of a vote—although clause 1 extends the right to vote. He believes that we should extend the right on principle.
My second objection to the proposals is that the basis of the House is representation. We represent the people of our constituencies. We represent their interests, their desires, their thoughts and wishes, the way in which they want the country to be governed and even the day-to-day affairs that concern them. Such representation will not be possible when anyone on the electoral register of a constituency may be living in the south seas, and may have been living there for 10, 20, 30 40 or 50 years and may never have returned to the United Kingdom.
I accept that one should not demand a price for the right to vote. However, the logic of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is that people who have not contributed to the welfare of our country for years could be entitled to vote for representatives in Parliament. That is made possible by the way in which the amendment has been drawn.
I believe that the proposals are wholly wrong in principle. The Home Secretary should reconsider the whole matter and introduce a proper Bill based on British citizenship as the qualification for the right to vote. I would support such a Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): Before I deal directly with this group of amendments, perhaps the Committee will allow me to say something about our general approach to these matters. It was said at the beginning of the White Paper, to which the Bill broadly gives effect, that our stance has always been that
major legislation of this kind must be put forward only on the basis of the fullest possible consultation between the political parties represented in the House of Commons".
Before presenting the White Paper we sought the views of all parties in the House informally on the Select Committee's major recommendations. The detail of the Bill has been worked out after the most scrupulous consultations with party officials and local authority associations. That does not mean that any one party can, or should, have a veto. There are central issues on which, as we said in the White Paper, our firm view is that legislation is essential. They are the extension of the franchise to people who live overseas, the extension of absent voting, especially for holiday makers, and the increase in the deposit. Those are the fundamental principles that are embodied in the Bill. Once they are accepted, there are many other important issues relating to how far and how fast to go in the implementation of those principles. Those issues are a matter of judgment rather than of principle. It is essential that we proceed with the greatest possible common agreement, or at least acquiescence, between the parties.
The matter was made clear on Second Reading when I said that we regarded our proposals on the franchise, for example, as a "sensible compromise" between those who oppose any extension in principle and those with whom the Government sympathise, who believe that the vote should be given to all British citizens throughout the world, no matter how long they have been away. On the question of the deposit, I said that we accepted that there is no figure that is clearly and absolutely right and can be defended against all other figures. I also said that we should listen with care to what was said.
I hope the Committee acknowledges that I made it clear that it gave the Government no pleasure to introduce absent voting provisions in Great Britain which would not apply to Northern Ireland. It is in that spirit that, since Second Reading, I have engaged in further discussions in an attempt to secure for the Bill as much support as possible, or at least acquiescence, in all parts of the House. I think that my efforts have met with some success. That has inevitably meant that other parties will have to go along with some provisions, often fundamental ones, which they have hitherto found deeply distasteful. For the Government, it has meant a readiness to go less far in the Bill than we should have liked. However, we shall stick firmly to the principles to which I have referred and, in so doing, make some fundamental changes in our electoral system. It is on that basis that, today and in subsequent debates, the Government will recommend that the Committee accepts some of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr, Kaufman).
As to the amendments before the Committee, I propose to advise the Committee to accept the amendment that limits the qualification period for overseas electors to five years after departure, and further amendments to clauses 1 to 3.
We have been presented with quite a menu of choices. Some say that we should not change something fundamental in our constitution and that the basis of residence, which has existed until now, should not be altered. The right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for South Down (Mr. Powell) have united on this matter, as they have on similar ones in the past. In an historical sense they are right. Residence has indeed been the basis for the franchise, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) gave the complete answer to that argument. He said that our constitution has evolved constantly and that it is right to recognise profound social changes that have taken place. It is true that many people now go to live and work abroad for shorter or longer periods of time. Unlike in the past, they do not lose touch with Britain. They have family and friends here, they might have property and children at school here and they are often liable to the payment of rates and taxes. Hitherto, as long as they were abroad they lost the most essential tie, the right to vote. One of the purposes of the Bill is to put that right. It is high time that we did so, and it is essential to get the principle of doing so firmly on the statute book.
Right hon. and hon. Members who oppose the change are right to argue that, if we are making such a fundamental change, it is reasonable to proceed at a pace which, if not acceptable to those who do not want such change, is at least tolerable to them. After all, they represent a substantial section of the population. It is for that reason, among others, that I do not agree with the recommendations advanced by my hon. Friends the


Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), supported by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), to whom I am otherwise grateful for his defence of the method by which I have put these issues before the House.
I do not agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and for Lewes and the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who wished to go less far, but further than is provided for in the Bill or amendment No. 30, because I believe that, as the principle is new, it is right to proceed with caution and general acquiescence and because I accept the argument that there must come a point, although it will vary from person to person, at which a person's links are likely to have been attenuated substantially to the extent that it is unreasonable for that person to expect to enjoy the franchise. It is not right that the extension of the franchise should be indefinite.
Any time limit is arbitrary and the length of time that it takes for links with the United Kingdom to be attenuated will vary according to individual circumstances. There is no right and magic period of time. I therefore listened to the enticing suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that I should take the power to bring before the House an order to vary the date that is agreed by the Committee. I do not shirk from the responsibility although it would not be mine alone—the House would have to approve any proposition that I put before it. However, I do not ask the Committee to go along with my hon. Friend's suggestion, as we are familar with the limited parliamentary procedures that the passage of such an order involves. Serious principles are involved and I should be unhappy if I or a successor had to make further changes by so cursory a parliamentary procedure.
It is important that the principle be enshrined in the statute book. Although I do not believe in an indefinite period at the moment, I believe that, as time goes on, many of the objections that have been voiced against moving at all will be seen to be invalid. It is likely that a case for a further extension will be made out. Even those who are not convinced that we should move at all will be persuaded, when they see how the Bill works out in practice, that, far from not moving, we should move a great deal further. It is right to proceed on the basis of the maximum consensus or acquiescence obtainable. I therefore commend the five-year limit to the House.
The Select Committee chaired by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) played an important and crucial part in laying the foundations of the legislation. Although the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has never been a friend of Select Committees, the House will regard his aspersions on them and the slighting way in which he spoke about them as unworthy of the House and the right hon. Gentleman.
I owe my hon. and learned Friend an answer to his specific question about the numbers involved. An estimate of 600,000 people who would be entitled to vote under a seven-year provision appears in the White Paper. It might be thought that through simple arithmetic five-sevenths of 600,000 would produce the right figure for a five-year qualification. I am advised that the figure would probably be more than that because of the pattern of people going abroad and the period that they stay abroad. It is impossible to be absolutely precise, but the figure would be somewhat more than five-sevenths of 600,000.
I hope the Committee will accept that the spirit in which the Government are approaching the entire legislation is not confrontational. We are building on the Select Committee's report and listening to, but not always accepting, what is said by the other parties. Where we cannot accept what is said because of the basic principles that we wish to see enshrined in the legislation, we seek at least to accept in part and to render tolerable what may not always be acceptable.
In that spirit, I ask the Committee to support the five-year proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Gorton and not any other amendments that may be put to the vote.

Mr. William Powell: During the past two and a half hours we have had a spirited debate. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he has shown the Government's approval of a principle which I sought to argue, even if he sought to put limits on it.
Those of us who have argued for the amendments have been accused of wishing to tear up part of our constitution. Not for the first time, the House was treated to an eloquent defence of the constitution by the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for South Down (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Member for South Down identified the clash of principle in the amendments. He said that we were a representational democracy, the basis for which was residence plus registration and identified the principle behind the amendments as one of citizenship plus registration. The right hon. Members' eloquent defence of the constitution was the most reactionary that the House has listened to since the days of the Rockingham Whigs.
We live in an evolutionary democracy and the great radical, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, has been most active in seeking to secure a rapid evolution for our constitution. He is a student of both history and literature, and managed to make both Colonel Sibthorpe and the late Squire Thorne seem positively progressive.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his support for the principle, but I shall ask the House to divide on the principle as I have laid it down. I accept many of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). In reality there is little difference in principle between us. However, those who stressed the representational basis of our democracy as being residence plus registration should remember that exactly the same representational principles are fundamental to the French and United States constitutions. Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate in the United States and members of the National Assembly in France all represent individual constituencies elected on a single basis. In tabling these amendments we are not seeking to challenge that.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 381.

Division No. 80]
[8.4 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Jackson, Robert


Ashdown, Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm
Maclennan, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cartwright, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Freud, Clement
Rathbone, Tim


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hayward, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David






Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. William Powell and



Mr. A. J. Beith.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dormand, Jack


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dubs, Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Barnett, Guy
Emery, Sir Peter


Barron, Kevin
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, Sir John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Favell, Anthony


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fletcher, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Fookes, Miss Janet


Best, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn, John
Forman, Nigel


Blair, Anthony
Forrester, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Foulkes, George


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Galley, Roy


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bruinvels, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Campbell, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gould, Bryan


Carttiss, Michael
Gourlay, Harry


Cash, William
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clarke, Thomas
Ground, Patrick


Clay, Robert
Grylls, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Hannam, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Coombs, Simon
Harvey, Robert


Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hayes, J.


Cowans, Harry
Hayhoe, Barney


Cranborne, Viscount
Haynes, Frank


Crouch, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Crowther, Stan
Heddle, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Henderson, Barry


Cunningham, Dr John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Hickmet, Richard


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hicks, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hind, Kenneth


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Deakins, Eric
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dewar, Donald
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dicks, Terry
Holt, Richard


Dixon, Donald
Home Robertson, John





Hordern, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Howard, Michael
Michie, William


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Mikardo, Ian


Hoyle, Douglas
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Moate, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Irving, Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Janner, Hon Greville
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Mudd, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Needham, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nellist, David


Key, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Newton, Tony


King, Rt Hon Tom
Nicholls, Patrick


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Norris, Steven


Knowles, Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Knox, David
O'Brien, William


Lamond, James
O'Neill, Martin


Latham, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Leadbitter, Ted
Paisley, Rev Ian


Lee, John (Pendle)
Patchett, Terry


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Leighton, Ronald
Pawsey, James


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lightbown, David
Pike, Peter


Litherland, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Portillo, Michael


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Powley, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Lord, Michael
Price, Sir David


Loyden, Edward
Proctor, K. Harvey


Luce, Richard
Radice, Giles


Lyell, Nicholas
Raffan, Keith


McCartney, Hugh
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McCrea, Rev William
Randall, Stuart


McCrindle, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


McCusker, Harold
Renton, Tim


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Richardson, Ms Jo


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rifkind, Malcolm


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



McKelvey, William
Robertson, George


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Maclean, David John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Roe, Mrs Marion


McNamara, Kevin
Rogers, Allan


McQuarrie, Albert
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


McTaggart, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McWilliam, John
Rost, Peter


Madden, Max
Rowe, Andrew


Madel, David
Rowlands, Ted


Maginnis, Ken
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Major, John
Ryder, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Malone, Gerald
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Marek, Dr John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Marland, Paul
Sedgemore, Brian


Marlow, Antony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sheerman, Barry


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)



Maude, Hon Francis
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silvester, Fred


Mellor, David
Sims, Roger








Skeet, T. H. H.
Tinn, James


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Tracey, Richard


Snape, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Soley, Clive
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spearing, Nigel
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Spence, John
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Derek
Walters, Dennis


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanley, John
Wareing, Robert


Steen, Anthony
Watson, John


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Weetch, Ken


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Welsh, Michael


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wheeler, John


Stott, Roger
White, James


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitfield, John


Sumberg, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Wilson, Gordon


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Woodcock, Michael


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.



Thurnham, Peter

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'seven' and insert 'five'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 382, Noes 21.

Division No. 81]
[8.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Anderson, Donald
Bruinvels, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Ashton, Joe
Butcher, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy
Cash, William


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Thomas


Beggs, Roy
Clay, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Tony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Best, Keith
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Blair, Anthony
Coombs, Simon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cowans, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Cranborne, Viscount


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Crouch, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crowther, Stan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bright, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dalyell, Tam





Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Howard, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hoyle, Douglas


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Dicks, Terry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dixon, Donald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dormand, Jack
Irving, Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Janner, Hon Greville


Douglas, Dick
John, Brynmor


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Tony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eastham, Ken
Key, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knowles, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Knox, David


Favell, Anthony
Lamond, James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lang, Ian


Fisher, Mark
Latham, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leadbitter, Ted


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forrester, John
Leighton, Ronald


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Foster, Derek
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Franks, Cecil
Lightbown, David


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Lilley, Peter


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Litherland, Robert


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Galley, Roy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lord, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Loyden, Edward


George, Bruce
Luce, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Nicholas


Godman, Dr Norman
McCartney, Hugh


Golding, John
McCrea, Rev William


Goodlad, Alastair
McCrindle, Robert


Gould, Bryan
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gourlay, Harry
McCusker, Harold


Gower, Sir Raymond
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Greenway, Harry
Macfarlane, Neil


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Ground, Patrick
McKelvey, William


Grylls, Michael
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Maclean, David John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hannam, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hargreaves, Kenneth
McQuarrie, Albert


Harris, David
McTaggart, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Madden, Max


Harvey, Robert
Madel, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maginnis, Ken


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Major, John


Hayes, J.
Malins, Humfrey


Hayhoe, Barney
Malone, Gerald


Haynes, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Marland, Paul


Heddle, John
Marlow, Antony


Henderson, Barry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hickmet, Richard


Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hicks, Robert
Maude, Hon Francis


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Maxton, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Holt, Richard
Maynard, Miss Joan


Home Robertson, John
Mellor, David


Hordern, Peter
Merchant, Piers






Michie, William
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mikardo, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Moate, Roger
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Silvester, Fred


Monro, Sir Hector
Sims, Roger


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Mudd, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Neale, Gerrard
Snape, Peter


Needham, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Nellist, David
Soley, Clive


Nelson, Anthony
Spearing, Nigel


Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith


Newton, Tony
Spence, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Norris, Steven
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stanley, John


O'Brien, William
Steen, Anthony


O'Neill, Martin
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Sumberg, David



Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pollock, Alexander
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Portillo, Michael
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powley, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Prescott, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Price, Sir David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thornton, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Tinn, James


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Torney, Tom


Randall, Stuart
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redmond, M.
Tracey, Richard


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Richardson, Ms Jo
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)



Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Walters, Dennis


Robertson, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wareing, Robert


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Watson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watts, John


Rogers, Allan
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Rowlands, Ted
White, James


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitfield, John


Ryder, Richard
Wigley, Dafydd


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilson, Gordon


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Woodcock, Michael


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Young, Sir George (Acton)





Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Robin Corbett and



Mr. John McWilliam.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Alton, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashdown, Paddy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Beith, A. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Rathbone, Tim


Cartwright, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Farr, Sir John
Wallace, James


Freud, Clement
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Gregory, Conal



Hancock, Mr. Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Haselhurst, Alan
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Hind, Kenneth
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Howells, Geraint

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (4).

The Chairman: It will be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
No. 25, in page 2, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 67, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
No. 31, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Corbett: The purpose of amendments Nos. 24 and 31 is to remove the right of people who leave the United Kingdom as children from eventually qualifying for votes in elections to this Parliament.
It is a nonsense for people who, for example, are taken by their parents to Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the Gulf States, to any part of Europe or wherever else in the world and who grow up in those countries and absorb their traditions and cultures to claim that they have a legitimate interest in voting to elect a Member of Parliament for a constituency in Britain which they can scarcely remember.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) earlier pointed out that elections under our system are for Members of individual constituencies. The overall votes are not put into a heap, counted and then Members allocated against the total number of votes cast for a party. That is an important distinction which most, if not all, hon. Members hold precious.
There is a great difference between what is being proposed in the Bill and, for example, postal votes for holidaymakers. I wish to make it clear at the outset that we welcome the concept of postal votes for holidaymakers, remembering that they leave constituencies for a time and return to them because they live in them and are part of those communities.
I was born in Australia. I left that country long before I was able to qualify to be on an electoral register there. However, under matching proposals in the Australian legislature, because I was born in that country, I might be told that I could vote for the equivalent of an MP for Fremantle in the sunshine state of Western Australia. Unhappily, I must confess to having no memory of Fremantle. I feel that it would be impertinent of me either to have the right to vote or to wish to cast a vote for a constituency in that fair city.
It cannot be right that people who have been taken, most likely by their parents, perhaps half a world away should, at a later stage, have a proper claim to a vote on the basis of having a genuine constituency interest.
We shall later discuss amendments requiring those claiming votes, although they live overseas, to declare an intention to return to the United Kingdom. That is a straightforward request for those, for example, whose jobs take them abroad, whether or not they are on fixed contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton explained, it is easy to demonstrate their position on the basis of residential qualification here.
That is not the case for those—we do not know the numbers—who, for whatever reason, decide to live permanently abroad. That does not apply only to those who retire abroad. There are others who prefer to live in sunnier climes or who have other reasons for living elsewhere. I do not criticise them in any way.
As the Opposition pointed out when we debated the last amendment, it is stretching credulity enormously—not to question the feelings of such people towards the place of their birth; I readily confess to having such feelings about Australia—to accept that, having lived out of the country for many years, the links are strong enough for them to have the right to vote for Members of this House in named constituencies.
As distinct from requiring people to demonstrate an intention to return—I hope that, when we debate that later, that requirement will commend itself to the Committee—giving the right to vote to younger people who may have been away from the United Kingdom for a long time and who may have no intention to return would, I submit, be out of step with what the Bill proposes in asking people to give a serious declaration of intent to return.
The view of my hon. Friends and me is that only those UK citizens who reside here but who are abroad temporarily and who fully intend to return should be entitled to vote in our parliamentary elections. I invite the Government to share that view.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is showing formidable virtuosity this evening. He stood before us announcing the largest victory in a Division that the Labour party has had to announce in many a long year. Before we got over the shock of that, he was at the Dispatch Box moving an amendment in words that made such compulsive listening that an unseen hand dragged me to my feet straightaway to accept it. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do next. [Interruption.] Perhaps he should leave while he is ahead in the game.

Mr. Kaufman: What about an Oxford degree?

Mr. Mellor: Whether his name should be submitted for an honorary degree at Oxford university I leave to his Front Bench colleagues to consider. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) goaded me into making that observation, and I shall, if necessary, plead that in my defence.
The Committee has approved arrangements by which adults who leave this country are entitled to vote in United Kingdom elections for a period of five years after they have last appeared on a register for a United Kingdom constituency, and they will vote in that constituency.
A genuine problem has always arisen about what to do with those children who leave the country with their parents but who within the five-year period attain voting age. It seemed logical to the Government that they, too, should qualify for the vote, just as they would if they had been living in Great Britain. However, severe practical difficulties arose about determining in which constituency they should vote. Should they qualify through their parents and be entitled to vote in the constituency in which their parents were registered, or should they qualify in relation to the constituency in which they had previously resided, which might be different from the constituency in which their parents had lived? Both of those alternatives contained practical drawbacks.
Having regard to the importance which the Opposition attach to this amendment and to the very reasonable basis that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave in the previous debate for reaching an accommodation over matters of constitutional signifiance like the Representation of the People Bill, the best thing that I can do on behalf of the Government is to recommend to my hon. Friends that they should accept the amendment.

Mr. James Wallace: As was seen by the size of the majority in the last Division, the old alliance, which has probably operated covertly for a long time, has been brought out into the open. This amendment is welcomed by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) put forward the valid reason that a person who went away from the United Kingdom as a young child would remember very little about the constituency in which he would be entitled to vote. The Minister referred to the practical difficulties. For example, if somebody went to the British consulate in, say, Chicago and claimed that his parents had been resident in a particular constituency it would be impossible to find out whether that was true. Although it would never cross the mind of any hon. Member, it might cross the mind of some of those who wished to disrupt our electoral proceedings that people could be sent en bloc to register as voters in a constituency that they thought they had some chance of winning. There would be no practical way of curbing such an abuse.
For that reason, and other reasons that have been given, the amendment deserves our support.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 33, at end add—
'(5) The provisions of this section shall not come into operation until such time as the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an estimate, country by country, of the numbers eligible to apply for qualification as an overseas elector under this section.'.
No hon. Member has stated how many people will be eligible to vote when the franchise is widened by the acceptance of clause 1. I am amazed that during the Committee stage of a Bill that will introduce a major constitutional change in the electoral system of this country nobody has stated how it will work, how much it will cost and how many people will benefit from it. I should have thought that any reasonable, sensible Government would have regarded that as a priority when introducing a Bill of this kind.
There are differences of view about how many people will benefit from the extension of the franchise. On Second Reading the Home Secretary said that he believed about half a million people would benefit from the extension of the franchise. Earlier today we heard that 600,000 people would benefit from its extension. There are 250,000 members of the armed services serving abroad who are qualified to vote. That figure was given by the Home Office to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The evidence was that 245,379 people were on the 1982 register. In its written evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Home Office stated that 150,000 people living in Europe and 250,000 living elsewhere might be entitled to vote. That works out at an average of about 600 per constituency. The Home Office figures mean that about 400,000 people would benefit from the widening of the franchise. The more we look at the guesstimates relating to the widening of the franchise, the more intriguing the position becomes.
Further evidence was submitted to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the Social Democratic party. In page 147 of its written evidence it said that probably several million people would benefit from the widening of the franchise. However, when the Social Democratic party gave verbal evidence to the same Committee, its representative, Mr. Briggs, referred in page 162 to about 600,000 people. Therefore, the several million had dropped to 600,000 by the time the SDP appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs. But even the addition of 600,000 people represents about 1·5 per cent. on a countrywide basis. In those circumstances, a marginal seat could be put at risk. Hon. Members know that during a hard fought campaign at a general election, even 1 per cent. can influence the outcome. In those circumstances, that figure could have an effect upon the outcome of the election.
Amendment No. 27 asks only for estimates to be made on a country by country basis before the Bill is passed. It is also relevant that the effect upon constituencies of such a widening of the franchise should be ascertained. Certain constituencies may have substantial numbers of voters of this kind. I refer to the recent report of the Boundary Commission that was implemented in 1983. We tried to create average constituencies containing electorates of 60,000 to 66,000. If there are to be 600,000 votes from abroad, or even more if certain people are to be believed, the figures must be ascertained. That should have been done in conjunction with the report of the Boundary Commission.
I am not against the extension of the franchise in certain cases, but I am certainly against its extension by means of the Bill. It does not do justice to the British constitution. It is hurried and it is misconceived because it does not give to hon. Members all the facts that they need before they proceed further with the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right to suggest that the proposal is vitiated by the fact that no one can with complete precision say how many people will benefit from it. After all, that is true of many of the changes in the franchise that have been proposed. It is certainly true of one that is not a matter of great controversy—holiday postal votes. Nobody knows quite how many people will

be away on holiday. It will depend on the time of year. No one will know the extent to which the franchise is widened by that.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will say that they are already on the register. That is fair enough. But we know that a substantial number of British people live and work overseas, some of whom—those who have been overseas for up to five years—will qualify for the vote. Except in certain countries where there is a particularly good reason for British citizens to make themselves known to the British embassy for reasons of public safety and other considerations, it is not a requirement that people should disclose to the British authorities, either within the country or anywhere else, where they are living. So there is no accurate way in which one can say how many British people are living in any particular country, whether a European country or further afield.
However, we can give some estimates, and some have been given. The fact that those estimates are really guesstimates is not a fair criticism. It is just one of those facts which we must acknowledge is inevitable when, in a free society, we do not monitor where our citizens go, how long they stay there or where they live when they are there.
There would be an abuse if people could emerge and claim that they were entitled to vote when that claim was not sustainable. We shall put requirements into the regulations that will ensure that a proper declaration has to be made before a consular official who will satisfy himself that the person who makes the claim is properly entitled to do so. Having submitted the form via the consular official, it will then go to the electoral registration officer, who, before admitting somebody on to the register, has to be satisfied.
Not only do we not know how many people will be potentially enfranchised as a result of this, but we certainly do not know how many people will take up the offer. After all, unlike a vote for somebody who is resident in the United Kingdom, it will cost money. A sum of money will have to be paid in order to apply to be registered as an overseas voter. The only indicator that we have is the service vote where only 55 per cent. of the service men and their wives who are entitled to a service vote actually apply for it.
For anyone to stand at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else in the Chamber and claim to be able to give an accurate figure of how many people will be enfranchised is an impossibility. I do not apologise for the fact that no Government could accept the amendment, consistent with wanting to do what we believe and hope that everyone, however reluctantly, accepts is a not unreasonable aspiration for any Government, in an era where an increasing number of our citizens, for perfectly valid reasons, will live and work abroad for some period in their lives. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too discomforted by the fact that I have not been able to give as good a reception to his amendment as that moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I hope that he will not feel that he has to press the amendment to the vote.

Mr. Wallace: We cannot support the amendment. It would have been helpful if one could have had some idea


of the numbers concerned, but, even if we had had a global total, as far as I am aware there is no information available to any of our agenices abroad which could have told us how that would have affected the 650 constituencies that are represented in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was concerned with the effect that it could have in the constituencies. Even if we had a total figure, that would not give us any greater idea about the effect in individual constituencies.
It is clear, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we have agreed to the extension of the franchise in principle in giving the limited right to vote to people who have been overseas for five years or less. If the Committee agrees to that in principle, it is not a matter of fundamental concern to us how many it will affect. If we believe that people should have the franchise, they should have it, be they 600, 6,000 or 600,000. There is nothing in the amendment which would help us.
The Bill can become an Act without us knowing the figure. Only this particular clause would be inoperative until we had that figure, and even then the figure would be only a matter of interest. The Secretary of State would not have to wait for a positive resolution of the House of Commons to operate the clause once we have the figures. It might be of more than academic interest, but, none the less, it would be a waste of time. I do not believe that the amendment merits the support of the Committee.

Mr. Barron: I accept that in some ways the amendment is badly worded, but I hope that the Committee realises that if the constitution is changed we should make sure that the effect of such a change does not create an imbalance in the electoral patterns of British constituencies.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As improved by Opposition amendments, the Bill will now allow British residents abroad to vote in British elections five years after they have left Britain provided that they make a declaration that they intend to return to the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence. The five-year limit, and the declaration, which will be moved as an amendment to clause 2, are clearly improvements in the Bill. But they still do not make it a desirable extension of the franchise. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, we are still opposed in principle to the extension of the franchise to British citizens living abroad.
Our reasons for that opposition are not just that the Bill would give the vote to those who have emigrated, which it would and which is wrong, or that it extends the franchise to those British citizens who have left the country for tax reasons, which it would, and which is equally wrong. Nor, indeed, are we opposing it merely because it will give the vote to those who are fugitives from justice. It will, of course, and their numbers are not necessarily insubstantial. Clearly, it is and should be offensive to all hon. Members that such people should have the vote. It is indefensible that they should have the power to influence the outcome of elections in Britain when they have no commitment to Britain and no responsibility for the consequences or effects of their decisions.
Nor are we opposed in principle to the extension of the franchise merely because there are anomalies. There are anomalies. Clearly it is wrong that a British citizen should have committed an offence by failing to fill in the application to register whereas a resident living abroad has an option whether to register for the vote. We believe that that is wrong, and we oppose the extension of the franchise in that area, because we do not believe that those citizens living abroad who are making no financial contribution towards the maintenance of Britain should have any part to play in determining what Government shall be elected. Nor are we opposed merely because there are no sanctions for any false declarations made by British citizens living abroad. Those are all valid and important reasons why one should critically question, if not oppose, any such proposal substantially to enlarge the numbers of those eligible to vote in British elections. However, the main reason we oppose the amendment is that it offends against the basic principles of our democracy.
Our constitution is based upon the notion of representative government in which single-Member individual constituencies elect single Members of Parliament and votes are cast by citizens, electors who live in the constituencies, and have a residential qualification in the constituencies. It is based upon the assumption that an elector carefully evaluates the candidate, his record and his views and has the opportunity, although he may not exercise it, to see, to meet, to question and to hear the candidate at public meetings. It is based upon the assumption that an elector, in exercising his right to vote and determining his choice of the competing candidates, will have regard to the issues in a locality in a local campaign and, indeed, in a national campaign.
9 pm
None of that can happen if the elector resides abroad. He cannot have a proper or continuing relationship with his Member of Parliament. Although some hon. Members earlier in the debate suggested that such people can find out what is happening in this country by reference to British newspapers which are circulating abroad or by occasionally tuning in to the BBC world service, those are in no sense adequate substitutes for a long, continuing and thorough understanding and knowledge of British politics at a national level. They cannot provide an effective means for British citizens living abroad, sometimes in the most remote parts of the world, to have ready access to what is happening in the locality, in the community and in the constituency in which they are nominally registered or to knowledge of the Member of Parliament whom they are supposed to be able to hold to account and for whom they will be able to cast a vote for or against at any subsequent election. That kind of relationship or intimacy is not possible, yet it is crucial to our democracy and to our relationship with constituents and electors who are residing abroad and may have been so resident for a considerable time.

Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those matters are essential, why does he believe that postal votes or proxy votes should be allowed to be exercised by persons resident abroad who have a property qualification in this country?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am establishing the principle, which I think most hon. Members have always acknowledged and accepted, but which in certain cases


may not be able to be policed. We all acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman and his party make a great play of the number of multiple registrations that occur. We know that they occur. There may be a good case for doing away with them. We recognise that in practice it is difficult to stop that practice, still less to police it. In no way am I trying to suggest that the kind of individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman refers should possess that right. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that there is no means by which one can prevent it. All those British citizens—and we are talking now about 600,000—were they to purchase property in the country and, quite misleadingly, fill in their electoral registration forms to suggest that they are resident permanently at the relevant time presumably could get away with it. One would not want to approve or endorse that, but I see no way at present in which one could police it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman was speaking as if the ownership of property in the constituency entitles the owner to be registered. Surely that is not the case. A registration which was claimed on grounds of ownership of property surely ought to be rejected by the registration officer. If I may say so, I think that underlay the intervention of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The right hon. Member is quite right. This is based not on the ownership of property but on the register of residents at a particular time. That principle, which we believe is important, underlines our democracy, and therefore ought to be protected.
If it be the case that those British citizens resident abroad cannot have a continuing understanding and knowledge of what is happening in a particular constituency over the period of a Parliament, even through the best efforts of the airmail editions of The Times or of the world service 24-hour broadcast, they cannot keep up with a campaign in a local election or a national election in which the issues arise on a daily basis and the campaign is fast-moving and changes daily.
British citizens living abroad do not see the daily effect of the Government's policies. They do not feel the consequences of unemployment and the destruction of our major cities. They do not suffer the results of cuts in education, social services and health provision. They have not witnessed the destruction of our environment and the quality of our life. They do not participate in the daily dialogue and debate with their fellow citizens, which is so crucial in moulding and sustaining political attitudes and decisions on the way in which individuals will vote.
That sort of knowledge and intimacy is impossible to acquire while living abroad. It is clear that it could not be sustained if, as the hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) suggest, British citizens resident abroad were able to vote in perpetuity in British elections. They advanced an extraordinary, indefensible and absurd suggestion in taking the opposite view and the Committee had the good sense to discard it.
The arguments of principle against extending the franchise to British citizens resident abroad are powerful and compelling. The Government have not addressed themselves to the issue of principle. Instead, they have had a clear regard, as always, to their own narrow self-interest. Conservative Governments do nothing else.

They have a clear, conspicuous and deliberate regard for their own self-interest. Apart from the arguments of principle, that in itself is a good and sufficient reason for my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the clause this evening.

Sir John Farr: It is regrettable that we are being asked to support the amendment. I did not find it possible to support that which it seeks when the Committee divided earlier. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has talked about British citizens resident abroad not being able to keep fully up to date with United Kingdom affairs. No one would expect the BBC to have the ability to enable them to do so. The occupants of the Opposition Front Bench have treated the BBC as a tuppenny affair of no account whatsoever, which provides a service that is not listened to abroad.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Sir John Farr: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to him for quite a bit today and I shall not give way now. I shall be prepared to let him intervene in a moment.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I have spoken only once in this debate.

Sir John Farr: And that was for too long.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I wanted to correct what he has said. I am not critical of the BBC's world service. It is a service that I hold in high esteem. I listen to it a great deal and no doubt I shall listen to it when I leave this place tonight. I was taking up the comments of other hon. Members, who seem to think that the service provided by the BBC by means of its world service is sufficient to allow British citizens living abroad to know exactly what is happening in the constituencies in which they have a vote. It is clear that it is not. It is not intended to provide that information and it cannot be a substitute for living in a British constituency.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. No one could suggest that an individual could base his opinions on British domestic politics, or on those of any other country, on the strength of a radio programme being broadcast from that country. However, the BBC's world service is an opinion-maker abroad. Its current affairs programmes are highly regarded and it is listened to avidly in every English-speaking country of the world, and in most non-English-speaking countries. I have taken the trouble, with a battery pocket radio, to listen to the BBC on the short wave in most countries of the world and the programmes have come over very well and clearly.
Ex-British residents who are still British citizens but who have probably lost the vote in the United Kingdom still have their national daily newspaper sent out from time to time from London or wherever. They have their own local newspapers in Africa and Asia. Most of the countries within those continents are basically English-speaking. The media are delivered in English.
The most important item of English news of which people in other countries are far more abreast than we in London is the state of the English football league. The second most important item is the state of English domestic politics—which party is favoured for election, which party is doing well and which is doing badly. I do


not accept that people who go to live abroad—perhaps earning valuable foreign currency for Britain—are out of touch with all that matters in Britain after as short a period as seven years.
The position is even worse now because of the last series of Divisions. The seven-year period was bad enough, but it has been reduced to five years. That is a ridiculously short period. I agreed with what my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said about the privilege that should be automatically associated with a British passport holder — having the vote as long as he or she wishes to exercise it. My hon. Friends mentioned the fact that many of the people who went abroad earned valuable money for Britain and our balance of payments. My hon. Friends did not have time to mention one point, but I believe it is right for the Committee to bear this fact in mind. Many of those people who are living in African and Asian countries are agents for British invisible earnings. They are engaged largely in transmitting insurance to Lloyds and the London insurance market and in helping with the consignment and shipping of goods around the world and may not come to Britain for a number of years.
I know people who are intensely proud of being British and who, in a calendar year, can earn a great deal directly for our balance of payments but have not been on an electoral register for 10 or 15 years. I do not believe that it is right for the Committee to say, "We shall reduce that period from seven years to five years so that anyone who has forgotten the events of the recent past in Britain will be disenfranchised." I believe, nevertheless, that five years is better than the previous position when people overseas did not receive the vote.
I admire the memory of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He may recall that, when corresponding with me in recent months about the proposed change in the legislation, he told me that seven years was the period during which a person would be entitled to vote in British elections after leaving the United Kingdom. In good faith I told my constituents who had gone abroad that the Government undertook to stipulate a seven-year period. I shall now have to explain—I do not know how to do so, because I did not vote with the Government last time—how a sudden shift of opinion after many years of deliberations can be justified in changing the period from seven years to five years.
In addition to having a good memory, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a sensible and balanced Minister. I hope that he will say that this measure will be undertaken for a trial five-year period and that, after that trial, the Government will introduce another Bill to abolish the provision altogether.

Mr. Beith: I do not propose to add a great deal to what I said about the amendments, which also went to the heart of the issue of overseas voting. It is obvious that overseas voting has been a part of our electoral pattern for a long time for service voters and for others who work overseas but maintain their electoral qualifications in this country. They can do so, as was mentioned earlier, not merely by virtue of the ownership of property, to which I referred, but by the occupation of property or the claiming of residence. That is what it is all about. They can make that claim in respect of a parental home long after they have, for all normal purposes, ceased to reside there.
We have referred, and will refer again, to the wide way in which a residence is defined and interpreted in British electoral law. I make the point to underline the fact that many people who are already abroad exercise voting powers in the precise circumstances which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North thought unsuitable.
9.15 pm
There are arguments of principle against any departure from the notion that one must be resident in the country to exercise a vote in it. Those arguments have been set aside previously for similar reasons, but they exist, and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) pressed them. They do not outweigh the reasonable claim that citizens of this country, often serving its interests abroad, have to exercise an influence upon the Government who greatly affect their lives, as they affect the lives of those resident in the country.
The justice of such a claim is recognised by most of the other democracies with which we deal. It is wrong to apply to those people some greater test of their ability to put a cross in the ballot paper than is applied to citizens here. Were such a test to be applied, many of them would pass it with flying colours and would demonstrate a greater awareness of and following of affairs in this country than is shown by many of our countrymen when they vote. That is not the issue.
We are not seeking to apply an education test. It almost takes us back to the days when people could not vote in many southern states of America unless they passed an entremely partial test of knowledge of the American constitution, which was often applied more rigorously to those with a black skin than to those with a white one. We do not apply such a test. There is no reason why we should raise such a point in this context as an argument against extending the franchise.
I do not believe that the Labour Front Bench is primarily motivated by an argument of principle. It has drawn the conclusion that two characteristics are possessed by many of those who live abroad and might wish to vote in this country. One of the suggestions that comes sometimes from the Front Bench, and sometimes from muttered interventions, is that such people are, by and large, disloyal and that by their decision not to live in this country they have forfeited their claim to any vote here. I dismiss that claim, but it is repeated. Earlier in the debate — for those who questioned it — there were cries of "Strasbourg votes" and other such terms of derision from hon. Members around me. I believe that there are those in the Labour party who choose to see residence abroad as a fundamental disloyalty to this country. That is nonsense.
The second characteristic attributed to people living abroad is the likelihood that they will not vote in any large proportion for the Labour party. I have no idea whether that is so. The Labour party has no idea either. Were they even to follow the proportions of people within the United Kingdom, they will not vote in large numbers for the Labour party. They merely reflect trends in the United Kingdom.
I fear that the Labour party's apprehension of how such votes will be cast has primarily motivated it tonight. That is not the basis upon which we should be arguing the matter. There are reasonable grounds for accepting the claim of people living abroad, who are often serving the


needs and interests of this country, to exercise voting rights here. I shall therefore support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.

Mr. William Powell: This is one of the clauses which was capable of improvement in Committee. It has been altered, but in my judgment it has been worsened as a result of the Committee's decision. No improvement has been secured — exactly the reverse. Nevertheless, a principle has been established for the first time which I hope will be capable of enlargement in the future. It is that British citizens resident abroad should be enabled to vote at our elections.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) did neither himself nor the Labour party any service by the manner in which he chose to advance the case of the official Opposition, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) correctly analysed the motives behind that. It is absurd to dwell at such length on tax exiles, fugitives and emigres. The great majority of people who would qualify under this provision come into no such category. They are working abroad, usually for the good of this country and to its very substantial advantage. The emphasis placed on fugitives and the like in the weeks and months during which the Bill has been under public discussion is patently absurd. Virtually all fugitives would be disqualified in any event because of their previous criminal convictions. It is inconceivable that people who have emigrated should choose to register, let alone to vote in this country, and the same applies to tax exiles. It is utterly unjust to place so much emphasis on entirely negative factors.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North relied on what he described as two fundamental princples of British democracy — representational government and the intimacy between elector and candidate, which he said was essential to the working of our democracy. Representational government is in no way affected either by the original Bill or by the amendment that has now been passed. In other equally democratic sytems the principle that we have now begun to accept is already part of the law. No one would seriously challenge the quality of representational government in the French National Assembly because French citizens are entitled to vote even if they are resident abroad. Equally, no United States citizen would dream of suggesting that the quality of representational democracy—each member representing an identifiable geographical constituency — is in any sense diminished because nationals resident abroad are entitled to vote in United States elections. It is equally wrong to suggest that the quality of our representational democracy will be diminished as a result of the small step that we have taken today. On the contrary, it will be improved and for that, at least, I welcome the acceptance of the principle, even though it has been severely qualified by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
As for the intimacy which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North regards as essential to our democracy, we would naturally like to have the most intimate possible democracy. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) suggested that even in the most intensely contested constituency contact between candidate and electors scarcely rose to more than 1 per cent. during the course of an election campaign. I believe that it is rather

more than that, but let no one deceive himself that it is possible for any candidate to become intimately involved with and known to every elector in the course of his campaign.
At the time of an election, any register will contain the names of thousands of electors who have moved to other constituencies, often a great distance away. Is it seriously suggested that it is fundamental to our democracy that such people should travel hundreds of miles to follow the kind of campaign that may have characterised ancient Greece but which has very little coincidence with current democratic practice in this country?
There are many imperfections in our system, and the existence of removed voters is one of the most severe. However, in laying so much emphasis on such matters, without appearing to realise how blemished and inaccurate his remarks were, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North was almost selling himself and his party short.
Not only today, but on other occasions, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has concentrated a great deal of gunfire on whether the Government have played fair over the method of consultation. The right hon. Gentleman and I seem to have one thing in common. In the past week, only one of our national newspapers has not brought to the attention of its readers the stories and suggestions made in all the other national newspapers. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman, like myself, reads only that one newspaper. We were therefore unaware of what was appearing in other sections of the press. Experience may have taught the right hon. Gentleman to doubt the quality of other newspapers. However, surely no one can be in any doubt about the fact that there have been substantial consultations between the Government and the Opposition about the form that the debate should take.
I am very dissatisfied with the outcome. However, for the first time, we have enshrined a new principle in our law — a principle which will enable our constitution to evolve as it should, rather than to become static and ossified, surrounded by the carbuncles of history, which have no place in our evolving society. Because we have achieved that much, and because of the manner in which my right hon. and learned Friend presented his arguments in support of that principle, even though he went on to urge that it should be limited, I must, for all my disappointment, support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: The essence of the remarks of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is clear. He does not want any distinction to be made between those who live here and those who live abroad. He believes that, however long someone has lived abroad, he should continue to have the vote here. Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the hon. Gentleman seriously distorted, in a malicious manner, the grounds of our opposition to the clause. They did not present our case fairly—but perhaps that was not to be expected.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said that the Bill is an improvement because at least it introduces the principle that people who do not live in this country should be able to vote. One could argue that the Bill is an improvement to the extent that the number of years has rightly been reduced from seven to five. However, that improvement does not deal with our basic objections to the clause.
Extending the right to vote to those not resident in this country is a major constitutional departure. Reference has been made to the Select Committee. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), like myself, is not an enthusiastic admirer of Select Committees. I voted against the establishment of the new Select Committees. However, I am, I suppose, to some extent an opportunist in that, once the Select Committees had been established by an overwhelming majority, I decided that I might as well serve on one. I am serving on one now. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be interested in the subject of its inquiries, which is the working of the special branch.
Before I was a member of it, the Select Committee recommended, amongst other things, that the right to vote should be extended to those who live in EEC countries. It did not recommend that the right be extended as widely as the Government propose. What is so wrong is that people who are to be given the right to vote need not have any link with a constituency. It is not suggested that they should be paying income tax. It will indeed be representation without taxation. Nor is it suggested that people should own a property or be a tenant of a property in the constituency. There is absolutely no link. The case for introducing this new concept would be stronger if such qualifications were included.
In a highly marginal constituency—

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Like the hon. Gentleman' s.

Mr. Winnick: No, I am glad to say; but like several Conservative Members' constituencies where the majority is perhaps only a few hundred votes or less it is likely that the decision about who will be the Member of Parliament will be made by those who live abroad. That is quite wrong. People who have no link with a constituency and who do not pay taxes should not be able to determine who represents a constituency. Some unkind things have just been said about the majority of the hon. Member for Corby.
Whatever might happen in other countries—the hon. Member for Corby has given some examples—there is an important link between residence and voting which should continue. Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to how the right to vote has been extended previously. The extension of the franchise to women has been mentioned. In all previous campaigns, especially with the extension of the franchise to women, there was tremendous pressure in the country. Indeed, we all know that some women suffered greatly in prisons as a result of campaigning for their right to vote. It is almost impossible to believe that that was only 70 years or so ago. The same was true for the campaign to remove property qualifications. I see no pressure to extend the right as it is now proposed.

Mr. Foot: There was at the Conservative party conference.

Mr. Winnick: That is quite likely. The right to vote is being extended purely for political gain. The Conservative party has concluded that more votes are to be gained in this way than in keeping the present position. If it had come to any other conclusion, we should not now be considering clause 1. It is unfortunate that the

Conservatives are using their majority, as they have on other issues, to advance their own cause. For those reasons and others which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained, I believe that there is every reason for voting against clause 1.

Dr. Marek: We live in a world of nation states and we vote to elect a Government so that we can be guided and have rules to enable us to live together. If certain people decide to leave one nation state to live in another, for whatever reason, there is no reason why they should be given a vote in the state that they have left.
We have a representative form of government. Such a form of government is never perfect. We can argue whether we should have proportional representation or a first-past-the-post system. There are different ways of trying to achieve the aim, which is that every person should be able to vote on and in full knowledge of every issue. Clearly that is impossible. We must approximate, and so we have representatives.
In deciding to whom we grant the franchise we must do the same. Should we grant it willy-nilly and to everyone who has been in the United Kingdom and leaves it? That end of the spectrum was suggested by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). I vehemently oppose it. Should we decide not to grant the vote to anybody living abroad, even if a person has lived abroad for a couple of years in the service of the country, such as in the armed forces? Most hon. Members would agree that there should be provision for granting service men and women the vote. There is provision for other people such as members of the British Council and diplomats to vote, but there are injustices. People who work for the World Health Organisation do not get the vote if they leave the United Kingdom.

Sir Raymond Gower: Why would the hon. Gentleman extend the vote to diplomats and the other people whom he classified but refrain from extending it to a person who works, for example, in the oil industry in the Gulf?

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. At present the vote is extended to diplomats, who must make a declaration every year, whereas service voters can make one declaration which will run from year to year. The vote is already given to those people.
However, the vote is not given to people who work abroad because of their employment or occupation. It is a grey area and we must draw a line where we think we can provide the best form of representation. I disagree with the clause. It is a better clause now because it gives people who have left the country only five years during which they can exercise their right to vote as opposed to seven years. But there is a blanket covering for anyone who leaves the country for five years to vote. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), in advocating an indefinite time, said that people abroad may return from time to time, but a person could return for a couple of weeks every year for 40 years. At least as of now they can do it for only five years. Nevertheless, that is not good enough.
We have three options. We can extend the vote by this open method, which is the Government's choice. We can do it by insisting that people who move abroad have the vote in the country in which they live. That is certainly possible. The Select Committee's report gives a list of


countries where the right of vote is given. That point has not yet been made tonight. In Antigua, Bermuda, Australia, Barbados, Canada — some hon. Members mentioned the United States, but not Canada — Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, New Zealand, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Surinam, and Trinidad and Tobago we have the right to vote.

Mr. Stanbrook: All those countries are members of the British Commonwealth; they are states in which all citizens are British subjects. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between Commonwealth states and foreign states?

Dr. Marek: I am talking about general principles, and the Government have chosen the first principle that I mentioned. The second way to tackle the problem is to allow people to vote in their country of residence. An EC committee considered that matter, but I do not know whether it has produced a report.
The third way to tackle the problem is to limit the franchise to some categories of people, and to say that we will give the vote to people who go abroad, provided that they are in the armed services, in the Diplomatic Service, employees of the World Health Organisation, employees of a British company, or those in the service of, and connected with, British companies. We would not give the vote to those who go abroad simply to become tax exiles or—this has not been mentioned in the debate — as fugitives from British justice.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Has not the Opposition Front Bench tried to achieve that by amendment No. 29, which might be accepted? If it is accepted, it will have the effect of excluding tax exiles from the franchise.

Dr. Marek: We have not yet reached that amendment, but I hope that it will be accepted by the House. It will go some way to solving the problem, but it will nevertheless be imperfect. I would prefer the vote to be given on a definite basis. Only those who go abroad for valid reasons should be allowed to vote here. Ideally, those who wish to vote in Britain should be liable to general taxation here. Why did not the Government think of that?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that the expatriate votes could make all the difference in a general election. Of the 16 memoranda included in the minutes of evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, No. 6 was submitted by the Conservative and Unionist Central Office, and No. 8 was submitted by the British Conservative Association in France. Conservative Members must realise who is interested in such matters. Memorandum No. 9 is a supplementary document from the British Conservative Association in France, and memorandum No. 11 was submitted by the British Conservative Association in Belgium. We should compare that with the one memorandum submitted by each of the other political parties.
However impartial or objective one wishes to be, one cannot completely dissociate oneself from the political consideration of whether the change will benefit one party or another. I would not believe an hon. Member who said that he was being dispassionate and objective and that anything he said should be taken as the gospel truth.
The Bill has been improved, but I still do not like it, and I shall vote against clause stand part.

Mr. Mellor: We have been over this course before, but I was grateful to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) for taking us on a tour of his speech in the House last December, which was a re-working of what he said in the debate on the White Paper last June.
The surprising thing about the proposal is not that it has been made, but that it has taken so long for it to come before the House. Britain is a trading nation—a Labour Prime Minister once said that exporting is fun—and we all know that some people spend an increasing amount of time working overseas for Britain. As I said on Second Reading, the increase in overseas work knows no class barriers. One need only look at the people travelling on an aircraft to the Gulf to know that it has nothing to do with class. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it is a sign of the lack of self-confidence of the Labour party that its members should be so troubled by the proposal.
9.45 pm
The Government attach importance to obtaining as much consensus as possible for the proposal. We must also consider the practicalities involved in enabling the Bill to reach the statute book in a sensible timescale. For that reason, I unashamedly say to the those of my hon. Friends who are unhappy about the restriction of five years that this is an appropriate bite out of the problem. It may not be as much as they would wish, but it represents all that is reasonably practicable at this time. I am confident that after a general election, in which these arrangements will work well, it will be possible for the House of Commons to return to the issue in the next Parliament. I for one would be all in favour of the House doing so. I believe that the clause is a worthy part of the Bill and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 165.

Division No. 82]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Crouch, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Beith, A. J.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Anthony


Best, Keith
Fletcher, Alexander


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fox, Marcus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruce, Malcolm
Freeman, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Freud, Clement


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gale, Roger


Butcher, John
Galley, Roy


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Carttiss, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Cartwright, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Cash, William
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, Harry


Clegg, Sir Walter
Gregory, Conal


Conway, Derek
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Coombs, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)






Ground, Patrick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Norris, Steven


Hayes, J.
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heddle, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Henderson, Barry
Paisley, Rev Ian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hickmet, Richard
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pollock, Alexander


Holt, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Powley, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Price, Sir David


Howells, Geraint
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas



Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkwood, Archy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lightbown, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Luce, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrea, Rev William
Speed, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spencer, Derek


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David John
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Steen, Anthony


McQuarrie, Albert
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Major, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Marland, Paul
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marlow, Antony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mellor, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tracey, Richard


Miscampbell, Norman
Trippier, David


Moate, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard





Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Wood, Timothy


Wallace, James
Woodcock, Michael


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Walters, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watson, John



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Tony Durant.


Whitfield, John



NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Anderson, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Home Robertson, John


Barnett, Guy
Hoyle, Douglas


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bell, Stuart
Janner, Hon Greville


Benn, Tony
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Boyes, Roland
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Campbell, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas
McCusker, Harold


Clay, Robert
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cohen, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maginnis, Ken


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dixon, Donald
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Farr, Sir John
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, M.


Fisher, Mark
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Forrester, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foulkes, George
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rogers, Allan


George, Bruce
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Golding, John
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Gourlay, Harry
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.






Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Tinn, James


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Torney, Tom


Skinner, Dennis

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Wareing, Robert


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Weetch, Ken


Snape, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Soley, Clive
White, James


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilson, Gordon


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Mr. Robin Corbett and


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. John McWilliam.


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about a rearrangement of business on Thursday. There will now be a debate on the Opposition censure motion, and the proposed debate on the Royal Air Force will be postponed until a later date.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House will recognise that this is the second business statement that we have had in two days. Whether we shall have any further business statements during the week perhaps events alone will decide. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for conceding on Tuesday evening that which he denied on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Biffen: Only the foolish optimism of the Opposition would determine the number of additional statements.

Mr. A. J. Beith: has the rearrangement of Government business consequent upon the announcement in any way reduced the likelihood that an Opposition day will be available next week to discuss the miners' strike?

Mr. Biffen: The topic for that day has not yet been announced.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: In view of the importance of the change in business, is there any reasonable supposition that the Opposition will turn out for the debate in any worthwhile numbers?

Mr. Biffen: That question should not be directed at me. In any case, I advise my hon. Friend not to be provocative.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the debate on the RAF has been unavoidably postponed, would it not be wise to have a Government statement on the revelations of Mr. Duncan Campbell in the New Statesman?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions on the business statement must be confined to what the Leader of the House has announced.

Mr. Dalyell: It refers to RAF spy planes using Punta Pirenas and Hawker Hunters being sold to Chile for questionable reasons, and the urgency of this is that there have been strong complaints from both Chile and Argentina in relation to the Beagle channel and the matter should be cleared up one way or another. We had hoped to clear it up during the RAF debate, but it looks as though the Pinochet Government have been aided greatly by a British Government who have said that they would have nothing to do with juntas. Let us have the truth on this.

Mr. Biffen: Such is the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman that I am dumbfounded that he should not think that it could be contained within the terms of the Opposition censure motion.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Bearing in mind the urgent decisions that need to be taken in regard to RAF matters on the new trainer and the next fighter for the RAF, will my right hon. Friend look closely at the urgent need for an RAF debate and arrange it as soon as he possibly can?

Mr. Biffen: Most certainly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Leader of the House tell us to what extent the massive amount that has


been lost as a result of the miners' strike will have any bearing on the censure motion? Can he also give us an assurance that the iron lady with the plastic pound will be speaking?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. Gentleman is able to catch your eye in the debate on Thursday he will be only too pleased to make then the point that he now trails.

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Clause 2

REGISTRATION OF BRITISH CITIZENS OVERSEAS

Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
'(e) declares that he intends to return to the United Kingdom for permanent residence'.
I think it is clearly unjust that diplomats and Crown servants can have the right to vote but people who go abroad because of their occupation, service or employment with private companies or perhaps working for the World Health Organisation, do not have this right. We would like to see, if it is possible, the right to vote by proxy to be extended to those abroad because of their occupation, service or employment — citizens of the United Kingdom who have the intention to return.
As hon. Members will realise, I have been reading from the minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee for Home Affairs in 1982. The witness, Mr. Mitchell, who gave that evidence upon examination by the Select Committee is the organisation and legal officer of the Conservative party.
The Conservative party clearly believes that citizens of the United Kingdom should have the vote if they go abroad because of their occupation, service or employment and, indeed—and importantly for the amendment—have the intention to return. The amendment seeks to do precisely this. It is a way of ensuring that people claim a vote if they have the intention to come back to the United Kingdom at some time.
As I said earlier in Committee, I do not believe that clause 1, which we have now passed, should have been passed because it is an open-ended clause and allows anybody to claim the vote whether he is a tax exile, a fugitive or properly going abroad because of his employment or service to the country. The amendment seeks to tighten this up so that such people will have to go to the consulate and sign a declaration. That declaration would have to be kept by the consular officials and passed on to the electoral registration officer in the constituency in which the vote would be cast.
I refer the Committee to the memorandum submitted in evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives:
It would seem necessary for there to be some sort of annual renewal of registration through British embassies or consulates abroad, who would have the responsibility of checking the facts stated".
In evidence, Mr. Jones, chief executive of Gillingham borough council, stated:
I think it depends really, Chairman, on how far you think these facts need to be verified. Personally, I would think they should be verified with considerable consideration, and I would prefer the consulate or embassy.
While Mr. Jones may have been talking about slightly different matters, he was giving his opinion on whether people should be able to claim the vote because of their occupation or service. That applies to the amendment. The declaration must not be treated as something that anyone can sign in his back kitchen and send to the consulate or elsewhere. It should be a proper declaration that is given in at the consulate or some other appropriate place where its existence is duly noted.
I hope that the Government will be persuaded by this moderate amendment. It is not designed to create a


watertight procedure, but I feel that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be considerably relieved if the Government were to accept the spirit of the amendment, redraft it and insert it in its redrafted form into the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on making his debut on the Opposition Front Bench. It was good to have the opportunity of hearing his oratory from rather closer quarters than it has been my privilege to enjoy before this evening.
It is no part of the Government's case that as a matter of principle the franchise should be extended to Britons living overseas who have no intention of returning to the United Kingdom. We take no exception to a declaration which would set out in appropriate words that the individual concerned intended at some stage to return. We need to find the appropriate way of putting that on to the statute book. It is no criticism of the amendment that it may not be the best way of achieving what we want. Would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied with the undertaking that the Government would bring forward an amendment at a later stage that would have the same effect as the amendment which he has introduced this evening if he were to seek leave to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If the phraseology of the subsection is to be redrafted, it is important that it is done in such a form that the purpose of the provision is achieved. It is rather an interesting subsection, which is designed to strike, I believe, at tax exiles. No tax exile — that is someone who wishes to arrange his capital affairs in such a way as to escape capital gains tax or capital transfer tax — would be able to sign the declaration. To do so would have the effect of causing the original domicile to be resumed. If someone wishes to achieve a foreign domicile they will not be able to sign the declaration. I agree with that because I do not see why tax exiles should have a vote in United Kingdom elections. When the declaration comes to be redrafted in accordance with the undertaking that has been given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that no tax exile can properly sign it.

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps it is appropriate, on the back of the amendment, to draw to the Government's attention amendment No. 28, which has not been called but which is in the same vein. I draw it to the Government's attention because the declaration needs to be signed in the United Kingdom so that it is enforceable in the United Kingdom. When someone signs the declaration to obtain the vote that is referred to in amendment No. 29, and if we are to have jurisdiction for the penalties that are subsequently to occur, jurisdiction must arise as a result of a decision of the Court of Appeal that the declaration has been signed here. The offence, if it turns out to be one, must be one that is committed here, and the courts here will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
When the Government come to redraft in accordance with their undertaking, it will need to be written into the amendment in its amended form that the undertaking is executed in the United Kingdom. I accept unreservedly that it would be ludicrous to say that those who are abroad and who seek to take advantage of clause 1 will all have

to come home to sign the declaration. That is why I suggested in amendment No. 28 that anyone who sought to apply for a continuation of his vote after 1 January 1986 had only to make a declaration in the United Kingdom. I did not attempt to impose upon those already living abroad and intending to return and take up the advantage offered by clause 1 the obligation of having to return to make the application. Although I stand by my overall position, I accept that those people should be able to make the declaration in the consulates in the country in which they are residents.
The point at the heart of this matter is that those who intend to sign the declaration to keep their vote should do so after the Bill comes into law.

Sir Raymond Gower: I should like to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will consider his point. The intention behind the amendment is much to the liking of both sides of the Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will be prepared to take advantage of the offer made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Dr. Marek: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his kind words. My appearance at the Dispatch Box was not too traumatic. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to what has been said about the amendment by hon. Members, including myself and the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) and for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I believe that there is a strong measure of cross-party support for this measure. I should like the Committee to allow me to withdraw the amendment so that the Government can table a proper amendment on report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There has been much jubilation among Conservative Members at the acceptance of a major constitutional innovation in the form of clause 1 by a majority of rather less than half the Government's normal majority. The significance of that innovation was underlined by the Home Secretary in that umbrella speech of his, which was intended to foreshadow the agreements and concessions that might be made at later stages of the Bill's consideration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was friendly to the widest application of the principle, and regarded what is now contained in clause 1 as only an instalment of the eventual grant of the franchise in the United Kingdom to British citizens, as such, not resident in the United Kingdom.
In the light of that statement, I draw to the Committee's attention that wicked little paragraph (3)(b) which states:
that the declarant is a British citizen".
It would have been impossible for the Home Secretary to have said what he said—indeed, it probably would have been impossible for clause 1 to have been introduced at all—had it not been for the British Nationality Act 1981, which created such a thing as British citizenship—a status that is all but exclusively identified with connection with the United Kingdom.
In past times, the qualification for the franchise in the United Kingdom was to be a British subject. Had that


condition still remained, it would have been impossible to assert the principle that a British subject, wherever resident in the world, should have the right to vote in the United Kingdom. The introduction of the narrower, national concept of "British citizen" made possible such a move and such a declaration from the Home Secretary.
Of course, we have the relics of that former dispensation in our present franchise law which, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) reminded the Committee at an earlier stage, extends the vote not only to British citizens but to Commonwealth citizens and to citizens of the Irish Republic who, ever since 1920, we have been endeavouring to persuade ourselves are still really British subjects, only they have not woken up to this fact and are a bit slow to recognise it. Those three categories are still included in the franchise within the United Kingdom; but be it noted that, contrary to some incautious statements which have been made about the effect of the Bill during these debates, it is not any elector in this country who can go abroad and for five years retain the right to vote at elections in the United Kingdom—it is only an elector who is a British citizen who can go abroad and retain that right.

Mr. Mellor: Quite right.

Mr. Powell: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary says, "Quite right". Amen, say I; but we have revealed the thorn within the rose or, perhaps from another point of view, the silver lining behind the cloud for those of us who did not want clause 1. This is the beginning of a train of thought which will lead us to the conclusion that if it is to be the proposition that the British citizen is, as such, entitled to the franchise, then we will say that that, of necessity, applies inside as well as outside the United Kingdom. We have laid the foundation tonight of an erection which was not perhaps intended by some of the supporters of the clause, though it may not have been entirely absent from the ruminations of the Government and their advisers.
We have laid the foundations for a reform of the law of the franchise in the United Kingdom whereby it will logically be restricted to British citizens, that being in all normal acceptance the meaning of "citizen"—a person who exclusively has the right of franchise, as well as the other appurtenances of citizenship, in his own country. So, be it noted, as they say, Sir Paul, as we part with clause 2, that that wicked little subsection 3(b) may point to the way to a reform in our franchise inside the United Kingdom which many have considered to be logical and which many have argued for over many years.
It is a way that things have of happening—that what one has most desired comes from an unwelcome quarter. There is a Virgilian tag to that effect with which I shall not trouble the House—

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Go on.

Mr. Powell: All right, it is the one which starts "qua minime reris": "from a quarter from which you least expect it, namely, from the Greeks, shall salvation come." I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is willing to accept a spontaneous translation. It is a common experience that those of us who have sought the prevalence of an argument or a cause find the way to achieve it open from an unexpected and even disagreeable direction. I believe that may prove to be the case with sub-section 3(b) of the apparently innocent clause 2.

Mr. Stanbrook: The purport of subsection 3(b)
that the declarant is a British citizen
is intended, presumably, to ensure that the person who claims the right to vote in United Kingdom elections is in fact a British citizen. One presumes that he will be able to prove that he is, but there is no provision in the Bill that he should so prove, and the only sanction against someone claiming to be a British citizen and who is not is in clause 11, which is the penalty clause.
The essence of giving a vote to someone living abroad lies in the fact that there is no jurisdiction in British courts overseas, and therefore clause 11 is inoperative so long as the person involved remains overseas. Apparently, therefore, a person who declares that he is a British citizen cannot be challenged and his vote must be allowed even though the local British consul may have good reason to believe that the declaration is false. How on earth do the Government intend to get over that?

Mr. Bermingham: I hope that the Minister will answer that point, which I stressed earlier. If the declaration is not made in the United Kingdom before the person goes abroad, our courts will have no jurisdiction and the penalties will be unenforceable. I concede that for a person who goes abroad and stays abroad there is a semi-deterrent in the knowledge that if he makes a false declaration he can be prosecuted if he ever returns to the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, if the penalties are to bite we must ensure that our courts have jurisdiction.

Mr. Mellor: Extra-territoriality is created by paragraph 62 of schedule 3, so if the person returns within the jurisdiction he can be tried here as though the offence had been committed within the jurisdiction. If he does not return, that is a different matter, but that applies to a whole range of other offences.
No one is under any obligation to accept a declaration if he does not believe it to be true. This applies equally to a British consul and to the electoral registration officer. If the officer believes that the assertion made is not true, he has complete discretion to refuse to enter the person's name on the register. It will thus be a matter for both officers to do their duty as they see it.
On that basis, I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE FOR EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 5, line 8, leave out ''seven' and insert 'five'.
No. 31, in page 5, line 16, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Kaufman.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Bermingham: We intend to oppose clause 3, as amended. It seems ludicrous to extend the right to vote in European elections to people resident in non-European countries. It is absurd to argue that people resident in, say, south America have an interest in European elections. I make no secret of my own view of the usefulness, or lack of it, of the European Parliament, but, leaving aside one's personal views on the whole European question, if we are


to be part of Europe the European Parliament should be elected by people resident within the European area. For that reason, I ask the Committee to oppose the clause.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 233, Noes 169.

Division No. 83]
[10.29 pm


AYES


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hayes, J.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hayhoe, Barney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hayward, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Heddle, John


Beith, A. J.
Henderson, Barry


Bendall, Vivian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Best, Keith
Hickmet, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hind, Kenneth


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bruce, Malcolm
Holt, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Robert


Cash, William
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Coombs, Simon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cope, John
Key, Robert


Crouch, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Robert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Galley, Roy
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maclean, David John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McQuarrie, Albert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David



Goodlad, Alastair
Major, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry
Malone, Gerald


Gregory, Conal
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael



Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Meadowcroft, Michael


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)



Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)





Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miscampbell, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Monro, Sir Hector
Spence, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spencer, Derek


Moynihan, Hon C.
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mudd, David
Squire, Robin


Neale, Gerrard
Stanley, John


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stradling Thomas, J.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pollock, Alexander
Thornton, Malcolm


Portillo, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powley, John
Tracey, Richard


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raffan, Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waddington, David


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wallace, James


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watson, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watts, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitfield, John


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Michael


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Young, Sir George (Acton)



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Skeet, T. H. H.



NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Donald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Barnett, Guy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cowans, Harry


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Craigen, J. M.


Beggs, Roy
Crowther, Stan


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Blair, Anthony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dixon, Donald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Douglas, Dick


Campbell, Ian
Dubs, Alfred


Canavan, Dennis
Duffy, A. E. P.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Eadie, Alex


Clarke, Thomas
Eastham, Ken






Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David



Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Forrester, John
Pendry, Tom


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Foulkes, George
Powell, William (Corby)



Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman
Randall, Stuart


Golding, John
Redmond, M.


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Gourlay, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hogg N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hoyle, Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Lamond, James
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis. Terence (Worsley)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Strang, Gavin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


Loyden, Edward
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McCusker, Harold
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


McKelvey, William
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert


McTaggart, Robert
Welsh, Michael


Madden, Max
White, James


Maginnis, Ken
Wigley, Dafydd


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wilson, Gordon


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maxton, John



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, William
Mr. John McWilliam and


Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Robin Corbett.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Brittan.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — M25 (Reigate-Leatherhead)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. George Gardiner: I wish to raise the matter of work on the Reigate-Leatherhead section of the M25, which, with the Leatherhead interchange and the section from Leatherhead to Wisley, constitutes a vital missing link in the orbital route round London, with long sections of completed motorway stretching either side of it. Within the unfinished stretch, work on the interchange is well advanced. Despite earlier difficulties, work is proceeding well between Leatherhead and Wisley. Work is furthest behind on the section between Reigate and Leatherhead.
The contract for the latter section was given to Bovis-Birse, which since a management buy-out has become Birse-Farr. The consulting engineers are W. S. Atkins and Partners of Epsom.
The completion of the section is of strategic importance for traffic movement in all of south-east England, and of acute environmental importance to Reigate, through the narrow streets of which the traffic thunders on its way between the eastbound M25 and the westbound A25, and to those who live along the A217 and A240 to the north, who suffer all the traffic that follows the signed route between the two open sections of the M25. Those who live by the A240, which is single carriageway south of Ewell, must suffer the passage of more vehicles each day than are carried by the six-lane M40. In Reigate and along the A217/240 this heavy traffic is increased during the summer as holiday traffic from the midlands and the west drives to and from the channel ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) is as concerned for the welfare of his constituents as I am for mine.
It was therefore with great anticipation that we awaited the promised completion and opening of the Reigate-Leatherhead section in the spring of this year. Imagine the dismay when we learnt last summer that the contractor had been granted a six-month extension until 25 August this year. That meant that our overloaded roads and overburdened communities had to endure the vibration, noise, fumes and danger from all that traffic through another summer.
But worse was to come. No sooner were we through last summer and into autumn than Bovis-Birse announced that it was stopping all work on that section, pulling off all equipment and laying off men, for the six months which the construction industry defines as winter, from 21 October to 21 April. A six-month extension of contract time plus a six-month holiday from further work calls for an explanation.
No satisfactory explanation has been given. The first excuse advanced was the wet spring of 1983, although one would have thought that some allowance was made for inclement weather when drawing up the contracts. That wet spring was followed by two good summers. However, I have my hon. Friend's assurance, in a letter to me dated 27 September 1983, that the weather was not a factor taken into account in granting the extension. The next excuse offered by Bovis-Birse was that the Department of Transport changed the specification for concrete used on motorways just before its programme for laying concrete


commenced. I would not criticise my hon. Friend for changing the specification to give greater durability to our motorways, and I do not question the fact that the necessary adjustment by the contractor would cost a little time—but as much as six months? The suggestion is not credible.
Why was the contract extension granted? At this point, I must make it clear that this was not a decision of my hon. Friend or her colleagues. Under the Institution of Civil Engineers Conditions of Contract, fifth edition, it is the engineer appointed to supervise the works and administer the contract who is responsible for deciding whether an extension of contract time is appropriate, and for how long. Therefore, the decision was taken by W. S. Atkins, and my hon. Friend was informed of it later. It is all very fishy.
It is hardly surprising that, when the cessation of work was announced soon after, it was suggested in my constituency that the extension of time owed more to cash flow problems at Bovis-Birse, and to the impending management buy-out, than to the weather or to concrete specifications, and even that a backhander might have been passed to the consulting engineers. I know enough of the repute of W. S. Atkins to discount that story, but the fact remains that no satisfactory explanation for an extension of as long as six months has ever been offered.
Then there is the mystery surrounding the contractor's decision to cease all work during the winter months. I gather that, under the terms of his contract, he can do so, although my hon. Friend assured me in her letter of 27 September that it was open to the contractor to carry out winter concreting if he wished to do so. Senior officials of the Transport and General Workers Union tell me that they have never encountered a case of a contractor pulling all men off an unfinished site in winter. It is noteworthy that Fairclough, the contractor on the Leatherhead-Wisley section, has kept some men on the site throughout. The concrete could easily have been laid on the Reigate-Leatherhead section in November; indeed, only half a kilometre of road remains to be done. Meanwhile, other staff could have continued lesser work in preparation for full resumption.
I do not doubt that Birse-Farr, as the contractor is now called, is within its contractual rights to cease all work for six months, just as it would incur no penalty if the road was not ready for handover before 25 August; and I accept that my hon. Friend has no power to order it to do otherwise. But Birse-Farr badly needs to win back some good will, and, although my hon. Friend has no power, she has influence. After all, the Government are the client, and my hon. Friend or whoever succeeds her will have further motorway contracts to place. If Birse-Farr is to secure any of those, it would be wise to turn in a better performance on this contract than it hitherto has; and the same goes for W. S. Atkins's supervision of it. I submit that if Birse-Farr gets men back on to this site well ahead of 21 April, if it starts concreting earlier weather permitting, and if it then works flat out, it will be possible to have the motorway open before the contract deadline of 21 August. I urge my hon. Friend to apply her utmost endeavours to that end.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Before I deal with the particular inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) — and I thank him for bringing the issue before the House tonight—I should like to confirm that the M25 continues to be top priority in our road programme. I am pleased to say that we are well on course for achieving our target of opening the entire 122-mile orbital route by the end of 1986. Already we have 86 miles open to traffic and the remaining 36 miles are all under construction.
I well understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). The Leatherhead-Reigate section of the motorway, with which my hon. Friends are particularly concerned, is of vital importance to the whole of that southern ring of the M25. I share the disappointment felt in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that the road will not be open sooner than August of this year. But there are some clear engineering and contractual reasons for the situation that he has described so clearly.
It may be helpful if I start by explaining the contractual position. It is not one that comes before the House on more than the rare occasion. The contract for the Leatherhead-Reigate section was let in April 1983 to the Bovis-Birse joint venture, which was set up for that stretch of road. The intention was that the three contracts that would fill the gap between Wisley and Reigate should be ready to be opened together, or more or less together, in the spring of 1985.
The Department's contracts for this type of work follow the conditions of contract laid down by the Institution of Civil Engineers, as my hon. Friend said. These conditions were established some 20 years ago, and have worked without problem in the intervening years in nearly all cases. But there is an integral part of the conditions which may not be well understood. It is that an independent and impartial engineer is appointed to supervise the works and administer the contract. W. S. Atkins and Partners, the consulting engineers, were appointed for this purpose for the Leatherhead-Reigate contract. This is in line with our policy that the responsibility for the supervision of the Department's larger road contracts should be undertaken independently of Government and thus in the private sector. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes the amount of work that is done in the private sector away from the Government machine.
Clause 44 of the conditions lays down that an extension of time for the completion of the works should be granted to the contractor by the independent engineer if circumstances arise that the contractor was not aware of the time when he prepared his tender. Such circumstances could include exceptional adverse weather conditions, unforeseen ground conditions, changes in the design required by the engineer or the employer, or any other unforeseen circumstances. It is the engineer's responsiblity—and his alone—to decide whether an extension is appropriate and, if so, the period for which it may be granted after treating each case on its merits.
In this case, the engineer, W. S. Atkins and Partners, granted extensions of time because of an unforeseen problem with piling to one of the structures and because as my hon. Friend said, of an improvement in the Department's specification for concrete roads.
This later change was introduced nationally as part of our continuing programme to improve the quality and durability of our roads. It will have long-term benefits by reducing traffic delays associated with future maintenance, and I am sure that it will be fully justified for such an important road as the M25. The extensions of time would not ordinarily have led to an eight-month delay in completion had it not been for the fact that the original contract was priced on the basis of summer concreting.
This is not unusual, as contractors frequently cease concrete laying during the winter. The extensions, of necessity, carried the contract completion date beyond 21 October, which is the seasonal limit of summer concreting. This meant that the contractor was entitled to have sufficient extension to enable him to complete the work in the following summer season, which officially commences on 21 April. The new contract completion date, therefore, became 26 August 1985. My hon. Friend referred at one point to 25 August, but I understand that he agrees that in fact it is 26 August.
The contractor is, therefore, entitled to take until 26 August 1985 to complete his work. It is for him to decide his own work programme to meet that completion date. However, if this new date were not met, liquidated damages would be payable.
The firm—Bovis-Birse, now known as Birse-Farr—decided in November to cease all work for the winter and resume again in the spring. This is a decision that it is entitled to make under the contract, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is most unreasonable.
My hon. Friend is understandably concerned that the consultant is not required to refer requests for extensions of time to me in situations such as this. The consultant works closely with my officials, and he is keeping them advised of events. But I must re-emphasise that, within the terms of the contract, the decisions are those of the consultant, and it is for him to satisfy himself that the factors were outside the contractor's control when the consultants granted the extensions.
My hon. Friend is aware from previous discussions that we have had that I have already ensured that my officials will remain in continued close contact with the consultant. Everything possible is being done to encourage the contractor, Birse-Farr, to press on as fast as possible with the work on this vitally important section of the M25 motorway.
I fully appreciate that local residents who are anxiously awaiting the completion of the M25 will have found it difficult to understand why the contractor has chosen to close the site completely. However, having received the extension of time, he was exercising his right to take a management decision as to how the work should be completed within the contract period.
The question has been asked why Bovis-Birse closed down in the winter, whereas the contractor on the nearby Wisley-Leatherhead section — Faircloughs — continued concreting well into December. I can only repeat that this is a matter for the management of the respective contractors to decide, bearing in mind that any work done during the winter months would not necessarily have a material effect on the completion of the works. In other words, there is work that may be done by a contractor who continues in the winter, but that will not necessarily speed up the end of the concrete paving that has to be laid in better weather.
As my hon. Friend now knows, we have no power to instruct the contractor to reopen the site. We might be able to induce him to do so by paying him what could be a substantial sum of money, but this would mean that budgets would be exceeded and, because of the difficulties associated with work in winter weather which I mentioned earlier, such additional payments as might be made would not necessarily represent value for money. Notwithstanding the priority that we give to the M25—I do not hesitate to re-emphasise that point — value for money must be achieved on every contract. I would not think it right to authorise additional expenditure on this contract which would inevitably be at the expense of other urgent road needs, particularly in view of the considerable uncertainties involved, and the use to which this money might be put.
Although 21 April is the start of the summer concreting season, there is no reason why the contractor should not restart work on site before that date and my officials, through the consulting engineer, will be encouraging Birse-Farr to do so.
My hon. Friend has made very clear his concern that the section of the motorway between Leatherhead and Reigate should be opened as soon as it is ready. The Leatherhead interchange is being completed ahead of contract and the Wisley to Leatherhead section will probably be ready prior to completion of the Leatherhead-Reigate section, so there should be no obstacle to opening the latter section immediately upon completion of work.
I know that my hon. Friend has not been concerned with the related timings of the adjacent contracts, but for the sake of the record and for those who may read the report of our debate he will understand me when I say that if there should be a substantial difference between the opening dates of the two adjacent sections — Wisley to Leatherhead and Leatherhead to Reigate—there would be discussions with the local authorities involved. The last thing in the world that my hon. Friend and I want is that traffic that has travelled quite reasonably on the motorway should suddenly turn on to roads that were not built to take that type of traffic. It is against that eventuality that I must provide.
I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that my Department is in no way complacent about the wider problem to which he has referred. As I said earlier, we attach very high priority to the completion of the M25, but we are concerned that the section between Wisley and Reigate should be completed as soon as possible. Existing traffic problems in Reigate, Ewell and other areas are badly affected by heavy goods vehicles and other orbital traffic. I well understand the disturbance, distress and inconvenience that this causes both to local residents and to the other road users. One of the reasons for building the M25 is to take traffic out of residential, shopping and commercial areas and we shall certainly do all in our power to see that the M25, in Surrey and the remainder of its length is completed as quickly as possible.
I hope that my hon. Friend will realise from what I have said that we shall not let up in our efforts to get the contractors back on site as early as possible so that this section of the M25 can be completed as soon as possible. Only upon its completion will my hon. Friend realise with me why there is a need not only to get the job done as fast as possible but as thoroughly as possible and up to the specifications that the Department lays down so that the road shall have a proper life without interruption. I assure


my hon. Friend that we shall leave no stone unturned to make sure that the contractor has the M25 in his area open as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o' clock.